Photograph  by  Braun  <£  Co. 


PIERO    DELLA    FRANCE3CA!       MADONNA 
The  Louvre,  Paris 


NEW   GUIDES   TO   OLD   MASTERS 

PARIS 

CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  THE  LOUVRE 


BY 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE 

&,. 

AUTHOR  OF     ART  FOR  ARTS  SAKE,       THE  MEANING  OF  PICTURES, 

"HISTORY  OF  PAINTING,"  "OLD  DUTCH  AND 

FLEMISH  MASTERS,"  ETC. 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 


K3 


COPYRIGHT,  1914,  BY 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  April,  1914 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

THERE  are  numerous  guide-books,  catalogues,  and 
histories  of  the  European  galleries,  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  gallery  visitor,  they  are  either  wholly  descrip- 
tive of  obvious  facts  or  they  are  historical  and  ar- 
chaeological about  matters  somewhat  removed  from  art 
itself.  In  them  the  gist  of  a  picture — its  value  or  mean- 
ing as  art — is  usually  passed  over  in  silence.  It  seems 
that  there  is  some  need  of  a  guide  that  shall  say  less 
about  the  well-worn  saints  and  more  about  the  man 
behind  the  paint-brush;  that  shall  deal  with  pictures 
from  the  painter's  point  of  view,  rather  than  that  of 
the  ecclesiastic,  the  archaeologist,  or  the  literary  ro- 
mancer; that  shall  have  some  sense  of  proportion  in 
the  selection  and  criticism  of  pictures;  that  shall  have 
a  critical  basis  for  discrimination  between  the  good  and 
the  bad;  and  that  shall,  for  these  reasons,  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  travelling  public  as  well  as  to  the  art  student. 

This  series  of  guide-books  attempts  to  meet  these 
requirements.  They  deal  only  with  the  so-called  "  old 
masters."  When  the  old  masters  came  upon  the 
scene,  flourished,  and  ceased  to  exist  may  be  deter- 
mined by  their  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  dates.  In 
Italy  the  tradition  of  the  craft  had  been  established 
before  Giotto  and  was  carried  on  by  Benozzo,  Botti- 


393597 


vi  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

celli,  Raphael,  Titian,  Tintoretto,  even  down  to  Tie- 
polo  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  the  late  men, 
the  men  of  the  Decadence,  are  not  mentioned  here 
because  of  their  exaggerated  sentiment,  their  inferior 
workmanship — in  short,  the  decay  of  the  tradition  of 
the  craft.  In  France  the  fifteenth-century  primitives 
are  considered,  and  also  the  sixteenth-century  men, 
including  Claude  and  Poussin;  but  the  work  of  the 
Rigauds,  Mignards,  Coypels,  Watteaus,  and  Bouchers 
seems  of  a  distinctly  modern  spirit  and  does  not  be- 
long here.  This  is  equally  true  of  all  English  painting 
from  Hogarth  to  the  present  time.  In  Spain  we  stop 
with  the  School  of  Velasquez,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries  with  the  seventeenth-century  men. 
The  modern  painters,  down  to  the  present  day,  so  far 
as  they  are  found  in  the  public  galleries  of  Europe, 
will  perhaps  form  a  separate  guide-book,  which  by  its 
very  limitation  to  modern  painting  can  be  better 
treated  by  itself. 

Only  the  best  pictures  among  the  old  masters  are 
chosen  for  comment.  This  does  not  mean,  however, 
that  only  the  great  masterpieces  have  been  considered. 
There  are,  for  instance,  notes  upon  some  three  hun- 
dred pictures  in  the  Venice  Academy,  upon  five  hun- 
dred in  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  and  some  six  hundred  in 
the  Louvre  or  the  National  Gallery,  London.  *  Other 
galleries  are  treated  in  the  same  proportion.  But  it 
has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to  delve  deeply  into 
the  paternity  of  pictures  by  third-rate  primitives  or 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  vii 

to  give  space  to  mediocre  or  ruined  examples  by  even 
celebrated  painters.  The  merits  that  now  exist  in  a 
canvas,  and  can  be  seen  by  any  intelligent  observer, 
are  the  features  insisted  upon  herein. 

In  giving  the  relative  rank  of  pictures,  a  system  of 
starring  has  been  followed. 

Mention  without  a  star  indicates  a  picture  of  merit, 
otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected  from  the 
given  collection  at  all. 

One  star  (*)  means  a  picture  of  more  than  average 
importance,  whether  it  be  by  a  great  or  by  a  medi- 
ocre painter. 

Two  stars  (**}  indicates  a  work  of  high  rank  as  art, 
quite  regardless  of  its  painter's  name,  and  may  be  given 
to  a  picture  attributed  to  a  school  or  by  a  painter  un- 
known. 

Three  stars  (***)  signifies  a  great  masterpiece. 

The  length  of  each  note  and  its  general  tenor  will  in 
most  cases  suggest  the  relative  importance  of  the  picture. 

Catalogues  of  the  galleries  should  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  these  guide-books,  for  they  contain  much 
information  not  repeated  here.  The  gallery  catalogues 
are  usually  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  painters' 
names,  although  there  are  some  of  them  that  make 
reference  by  school,  or  room,  or  number,  according  to 
the  hanging  of  the  pictures  in  the  gallery.  But  the 
place  where  the  picture  may  be  hung  is  constantly 
shifting;  its  number,  too,  may  be  subject  to  alteration 
with  each  new  edition  of  the  catalogue;  but  its  painter's 


viii  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

name  is  perhaps  less  liable  to  change.  An  arrangement, 
therefore,  by  the  painters'  names  placed  alphabetically 
has  been  necessarily  adopted  in  these  guide-books. 
Usually  the  prefixes  "de,"  "di,"  "van,"  and  "von" 
have  been  disregarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names. 
And  usually,  also,  the  more  familiar  name  of  the  artist 
is  used — that  is,  Botticelli,  not  Filipepi ;  Correggio,  not 
Allegri;  Tintoretto,  not  Robust!.  In  practical  use  the 
student  can  ascertain  from  the  picture-frame  the  name 
of  the  painter  and  turn  to  it  alphabetically  in  this  guide- 
book. In  case  the  name  has  been  recently  changed, 
he  can  take  the  number  from  the  frame  and,  by  turning 
to  the  numerical  index  at  the  end  of  each  volume,  can 
ascertain  the  former  name  and  thus  the  alphabetical 
place  of  the  note  about  that  particular  picture. 

The  picture  appears  under  the  name  or  attribution 
given  in  the  catalogue.  If  there  is  no  catalogue,  then 
the  name  on  the  frame  is  taken.  But  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  name  or  attribution  is 
accepted  in  the  notes.  Differences  of  view  are  given 
very  frequently.  It  is  important  that  we  should  know 
the  painter  of  the  picture  before  us.  The  question  of 
attribution  is  very  much  in  the  air  to-day,  and  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  it  not  only  in  the  General  In- 
troduction but  in  the  notes  themselves.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  whole  question  of  authorship  is  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  beauty  of  the  picture  itself.  It 
is  always  the  art  of  the  picture  we  are  seeking,  more 
than  its  name,  or  pedigree,  or  commercial  value. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  ix 

Conciseness  herein  has  been  a  necessity.  These 
notes  are  suggestions  for  study  or  thought  rather  than 
complete  statements  about  the  pictures.  Even  the 
matter  of  an  attribution  is  often  dismissed  in  a  sentence 
though  it  may  have  been  thought  over  for  weeks. 
If  the  student  would  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  he 
must  read  further  and  do  some  investigating  on  his 
own  account.  The  lives  of  the  painters,  the  history  of 
the  schools,  the  opinions  of  the  connoisseurs  may  be 
read  elsewhere.  A  bibliography,  in  the  London  vol- 
ume, will  suggest  the  best  among  the  available  books 
in  both  history  and  criticism. 

The  proper  test  of  a  guide-book  is  its  use.  These 
notes  were  written  in  the  galleries  and  before  the  pic- 
tures. I  have  not  trusted  my  memory  about  them,  nor 
shall  I  trust  the  memory  of  that  man  who,  from  his 
easy  chair,  declares  he  knows  the  pictures  by  heart. 
The  opinions  and  conclusions  herein  have  not  been 
lightly  arrived  at.  Indeed,  they  are  the  result  of  more 
than  thirty  years'  study  of  the  European  galleries. 
That  they  are  often  diametrically  opposed  to  current 
views  and  beliefs  should  not  be  cause  for  dismissing 
them  from  consideration.  Examine  the  pictures,  guide- 
book in  hand.  That  is  the  test  to  which  I  submit  and 
which  I  exact. 

•  Yet  with  this  insistence  made,  one  must  still  feel 
apologetic  or  at  least  sceptical  about  results.  However 
accurate  one  would  be  as  to  fact,  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible to  handle  so  many  titles,  names,  and  numbers 


x  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

without  an  occasional  failure  of  the  eye  or  a  slip  of  the 
pen;  and  however  frankly  fair  in  criticism  one  may 
fancy  himself,  it  is  again  impossible  to  formulate  judg- 
ments on,  say,  ten  thousand  pictures  without  here  and 
there  committing  blunders.  These  difficulties  may  be 
obviated  in  future  editions.  If  opinions  herein  are 
found  to  be  wrong,  they  will  be  edited  out  of  the  work 
just  as  quickly  as  errors  of  fact.  The  reach  is  toward 
a  reliable  guide  though  the  grasp  may  fall  short  of  full 
attainment. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  George  B.  McClellan  for  helpful  suggestions  re- 
garding this  series,  and  to  Mr.  Sydney  Philip  Noe  not 
only  for  good  counsel  but  for  practical  assistance  in 
copying  manuscript  and  reading  proof. 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE. 
RUTGERS  COLLEGE,  1914. 


THE  LOUVRE 


NOTE  ON  THE  LOUVRE 

ALL  told,  the  Louvre  is  the  largest  collection  of  pic- 
tures in  Europe  and  perhaps  the  most  famous.  It  has 
been  in  process  of  accumulation  for  several  centuries, 
and  the  process  is  going  on  to-day  with  no  whit  of  en- 
ergy abated.  Francis  I  furnished  the  original  im- 
pulse, for  his  private  collection  of  nearly  two  hundred 
pictures — most  of  them  Italian — formed  the  nucleus. 
The  royal  collections  were  greatly  enlarged  by  Louis 
XIV,  and  he  it  was  who  first  placed  the  pictures  in  the 
old  palace  of  the  Louvre.  They  did  not  stay  there 
long,  however,  but  were  taken  to  Versailles,  to  Fon- 
tainebleau,  and  later  to  the  Palace  of  the  Luxembourg. 
The  growth  was  continued  by  additions  of  such  col- 
lections as  those  of  Cardinal  Mazarin  and  Jabach  the 
banker.  In  1710  there  were  over  twenty-four  hundred 
pictures  belonging  to  the  crown. 

When  Napoleon  came  into  power  the  pictures  were 
finally  installed  in  the  Louvre  and  enormous  accumu- 
lations of  art — taken  as  the  plunder  of  war  from  Italy, 
Germany,  and  the  Netherlands — were  added.  At  one 
time  half  the  masterpieces  of  Europe  were  in  Paris, 
and  though  most  of  these  works  were  afterward  re- 
stored to  their  owners,  there  were  many  that  remained 

3 


1  NOTE  ON  THE  LOUVRE 

behind,  in  the  Louvre,  and  are  there  now.  Since  Na- 
poleon's time  pictures  have  continued  to  gravitate  to 
this  collection,  not  only  by  purchase  and  donation  of 
single  pictures,  but  by  gifts  of  private  collections  in 
bulk.  Of  recent  years  the  collections  of  Campana, 
Sauvageot,  Thiers,  La  Caze,  Thomy-Thiery,  Chau- 
chard,  Moreau  have  made  important  additions.  The 
Louvre  is  now  a  great  national  museum,  and  every 
Frenchman  regards  it  patriotically  and  helps  it  as  best 
he  can.  To-day  it  contains  over  three  thousand  pic- 
tures, a  collection  which  both  in  quantity  and  quality 
gives  just  cause  for  national  pride. 

The  glory  of  the  Louvre  has  been  its  great  master- 
pieces by  famous  artists.  In  order  that  the  extent  and 
beauty  of  these  might  be  seen,  they  were  brought  to- 
gether in  one  large,  well-lighted  room,  called  the  Salon 
Carre.  Some  of  them  still  remain  there,  but  the 
masterpieces  of  the  gallery  long  ago  outgrew  the  limits 
of  the  Salon  Carre*,  and  many  of  them  are  now  to  be 
found  scattered  throughout  the  rooms  in  the  schools 
to  which  they  belong. 

With  the  exception  of  the  Salon  Carre  and  the  special 
collections,  like  the  La  Caze,  the  pictures  are  arranged 
by  schools  as  nearly  as  wall  space  and  circumstance  will 
allow.  The  Italian  takes  up  greater  space  than  any 
of  the  foreign  schools.  Its  representation  is  excellent. 
Even  in  the  side  room  devoted  to  the  Primitives  there 
are  examples  of  the  Early  Florentines,  Umbrians, 
Sienese  that  every  student  must  stop  and  consider — 


NOTE  ON  THE  LOUVRE  5 

precious  things  in  fresco  and  tempera  with  gilded  haloes, 
embossed  backgrounds,  and  tooled  borderings.  Under 
such  names  as  Botticelli  and  Piero  della  Francesca 
there  are  wonderful  panels  of  the  Madonna  and  Child ; 
on  one  wall  is  a  masterpiece  by  Fra  Filippo,  on  the 
opposite  wall  a  matchless  portrait  by  Pisanello,  on  the 
staircase  without  is  a  large  and  fine  fresco  by  Fra 
Angelico,  and  near  it  two  famous  frescoes  by  Botticelli. 

In  the  long  gallery  of  the  Louvre  there  appear  scores 
of  pictures  by  the  Early  Renaissance  men,  including 
famous  Francias,  Costas,  Peruginos,  Turas,  Bianchis. 
Here  the  student  will  find  the  two  most  brilliant  Man- 
tegnas  in  existence,  besides  his  celebrated  Madonna  of 
the  Victory,  and  the  newly  acquired  St.  Sebastian — his 
most  important  work  aside  from  his  frescoes.  Here, 
too,  is  the  famous  Portrait  of  a  Man  by  Antonello 
da  Messina,  with  works  by  Bellini,  Carpaccio,  Cima, 
and  others  of  the  Venetian  School,  all  of  them  excellent 
in  quality. 

The  great  Italian  masterpieces,  however,  belong  to 
the  High  Renaissance  and  are  found  either  in  the  long 
gallery  or  in  the  Salon  Carre.  The  Raphaels  on  the 
list  may  be  cut  down  to  five,  but  this  still  leaves  us 
the  Belle  Jardiniere,  the  Holy  Family  of  Francis  I, 
and  the  Castiglione  Portrait — all  in  the  Salon  Carre. 
The  representation  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci  is  more 
amazing,  for  it  includes  almost  everything  of  his  that 
is  finished  or  not  in  ruins — the  Mona  Lisa,  the  Madonna 
and  St.  Anne,  the  Madonna  of  the  Rocks.  These  three 


6  NOTE  ON  THE  LOUVRE 

works  are  not  only  famous  and  priceless  but  indispen- 
sably important  to  the  student  of  art  history.  As  pure 
art  they  are  not  more  wonderful  than  the  famous  Con- 
cert by  Giorgione,  the  rich  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine, 
and  the  Antiope,  by  Correggio,  the  gorgeous  Marriage 
in  Cana,  by  Paolo  Veronese,  the  majestic  Entombment, 
by  Titian,  hanging  near  them.  They  are  all  artistic 
gems  of  purest  ray,  and  are  texts  for  prolonged  study. 
They  grow  more  wonderful  each  time  one  sees  them. 

When  one  has  worked  through  the  rows  of  Titians, 
Palmas,  Veroneses,  Lottos,  in  the  long  gallery,  he  comes 
to  the  Spanish  School.  Here  the  representation  is  less 
complete.  There  are  Murillos,  Riberas,  Herreras,  II 
Grecos,  Goyas,  and  one  most  lovely  Velasquez,  the 
Infanta  Margarita  (in  the  Salon  Carre),  but  the  Spanish 
School  is  a  little  weak.  So  too  the  German,  though 
here,  again,  there  are  glorious  portraits  by  Holbein  of 
Erasmus,  More,  and  others,  and  one  lovely  picture  of 
a  little  girl  by  Cranach.  The  Flemish  masters  follow 
with  famous  portraits  of  Richardot,  Charles  I,  and 
others  by  Van  Dyck — in  many  respects  the  Charles  I 
is  his  masterpiece — a  number  of  pictures  by  Jordaens, 
and  a  wide  range  of  superb  canvases  by  Rubens,  cul- 
minating in  a  far  room  entirely  devoted  to  his  Medici 
pictures. 

The  Dutch  School  starts  with  many  portraits  put 
down  to  Hals  and  Rembrandt,  upon  which  the  notes 
herein  comment  at  some  length.  In  the  side  cabinets 
the  lesser  Dutchmen,  Terborch,  De  Hooch,  Metsu, 


NOTE  ON  THE  LOUVRE  7 

Steen,  Dou,  Brouwer  are  seen  to  advantage.  Here,  too, 
are  cabinets  devoted  to  the  Dutch  and  Flemish  Primi- 
tives— the  Van  Eycks,  Davids,  Van  der  Weydens.  The 
unique  collection  of  the  gallery  is  that  of  the  French 
Primitives  in  two  or  three  rooms  by  themselves.  This 
offers  the  student  a  rare  opportunity  to  see  the  begin- 
nings of  French  painting.  There  is  no  such  collection 
elsewhere.  Here,  in  the  Louvre,  one  can  see  all  French 
art  better  represented  than  in  any  other  European 
gallery.  The  modern  men  are  not  dealt  with  in  these 
notes,  but  the  student  will  not,  of  course,  pass  them  by. 

The  galleries  and  corridors  are  rather  badly  lighted 
and  on  dark  days  it  is  impossible  to  see  the  pictures 
properly.  Moreover,  there  is  some  bad  hanging — some- 
thing not  always  to  be  avoided.  Many  pictures  in  the 
long  gallery  suffer  from  want  of  proper  distance  to  see 
them  or  are  placed  so  high  that  they  catch  reflections 
and  lights  from  above,  and  are  rendered  meaningless. 
Of  course  this  does  not  apply  to  the  large  and  more 
spacious  Salon  Carre,  nor  to  the  famous  Rubens 
room  which  holds  the  series  of  Medici  pictures.  After 
suffering  distortion  (and  consequent  abuse)  in  the 
long  narrow  thoroughfare  of  the  Louvre  for  many 
years,  these  pictures  are  now  shown  adequately  in  a 
room  by  themselves.  The  general  look  of  that  room 
offers  weighty  argument  for  the  decorative  in  art. 
It  is  a  magnificent  effect  that  the  Rubens-haters  might 
study  with  profit. 

The  direction  of  the  Louvre  has  not  published  an 


8  NOTE  ON  THE  LOUVRE 

official  catalogue  in  thirty  years.  The  less  said  about 
the  semiofficial  La  Fenestre  catalogue  the  better.  It 
is  neither  complete  nor  critical,  it  is  badly  printed 
and  illustrated,  and  is  expensive  into  the  bargain.  Un- 
fortunately it  happens  to  be  the  only  one  offered  the 
visitor,  and  we  are  obliged  to  follow  it.  A  much  better 
catalogue  by  Seymour  de  Ricci  and  Joseph  Reinach 
(again  unofficial)  is  being  issued.  Recent  acquisitions 
are  not  usually  numbered  or  catalogued  for  months 
after  their  arrival.  They  are  marked  in  these  notes 
n.  n.  (no  number).  Cheap  photographic  reproductions 
of  the  Louvre  pictures  are  to  be  had  in  the  shops  in  the 
Rue  de  Seine  and  elsewhere. 

Other  collections  of  old  masters  in  Paris,  aside  from 
private  holding,  are  not  very  important.  There  are  a 
few  pictures  at  the  Musee  de  Cluny,  the  Musee  Dutuit, 
the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  (miniatures  and  illumina- 
tions), which  the  student  with  plenty  of  time  should 
see.  Outside  of  Paris  there  is  little  at  Versailles  or 
Fontainebleau,  but  at  Chantilly  there  is  the  Musee 
Conde,  containing  the  pictures  collected  by  the  late 
Due  d'Aumale,  that  should  be  seen. 


THE  LOUVRE 

1114.  Albertinelli,   Mario tto.     The  Virgin  and  Child 
with  St.  Jerome.     A  pyramidal  composition  after 
the  style  of  his  colleague  and  fellow  worker,  Fra 
Bartolommeo.     The  draperies  are  not  so  full  and 
free  in  their  flow,  however,  as  with  Fra  Bartolom- 
meo, as  note  in  the  saint  at  left — evidently  the 
work  of  another  painter  than  either  Bartolommeo 
or  Albertinelli.     The  landscape  is  interesting  in  its 
trees  with  their  spread  lace-work  foliage  at  the  left. 
The  colour  is  only  so-so.     The  whole  picture  is  a 
little  puzzling,  perhaps  because  it  is  a  workshop  af- 
fair in  which  several  painters  have  had  a  hand. 

1115.    Christ  Appearing   to   the  Magdalen.     With  a 

beseeching  look  in  the  Magdalen  quite  pathetic. 
The  landscape  is  noticeable  for  its  very  light  tone, 
and  that,  with  the  very  broad  draperies,  points 
rather  to  Fra  Bartolommeo  than  to  Albertinelli  as 
the  painter.     See  the  Fra  Bartolommeo  in  the  Na- 
tional Gallery,  London  (No.   1694),  for  a  similar 
effect  of  light  and  landscape.     A  handsome  little 
picture  in  its  lines  of  drapery  and  its  rich  colour — 
things  that  again  point  to  Fra  Bartolommeo. 

1290.  Angelico,  Fra.  Coronation  of  the  Virgin.  Not- 
withstanding the  eulogies  of  this  picture  by  Vasari 
and  Theophile  Gautier,  quoted  in  the  catalogue,  it  is 
by  no  means  the  best,  or  even  a  good,  Fra  Angelico. 
The  picture  has  suffered  in  its  surface,  and  is  now 
9 


10  THE  LOUVRE 

either  raw,  as  in  the  sky  and  steps,  or  dull,  as  in 
the  robes,  or  unconvincing,  as  in  the  flowers  and 
hats.  The  faces  are  also  wanting  in  the  painter's 
usual  charm  of  sentiment.  The  picture  was  prob- 
ably worked  upon  by  assistants.  The  scenes  in 
the  predella  at  the  bottom  are  more  interesting 
and  better  in  colour,  especially  in  the  blues.  Look 
at  the  blue  angels,  or  cherubim,  with  the  Francis- 
cans at  the  right,  and  the  sky  and  tower  in  the  last 
panel  at  the  left.  This  predella  is  in  better  con- 
dition than  the  picture. 

1293.    Martyrdom,    of   St.    Cosmo   and  St.    Damian. 

This  is  a  part  of  a  predella,  and  is  a  much  better 
piece  of  colour  than  the  large  Coronation  (No.  1290), 
but  still  not  in  Fra  Angelico's  best  vein.  The 
landscape  with  the  dotted  white  buildings  is  broadly 
true  and  singularly  beautiful.  But  the  painter's 
small  works  in  the  Florence  Academy  are  better 
than  this. 

N.  N. Praying  Angel.  Possibly  an  angel  of  the  An- 
nunciation, with  the  rest  of  the  panel  lost.  It  is 
lovely  in  its  fine  feeling  of  purity,  both  in  the  angel 
and  in  the  colour.  The  neck  is  long,  the  wings 
blue,  the  robe  red.  It  possibly  belongs  earlier 
than  Fra  Angelico. 

1294.   Crucifixion.     (A  fresco  on  the  landing  of  the 

Daru  staircase.)     To  those  who  have  not  seen  the 
frescoes  of  Fra  Angelico  in  San  Marco,  Florence, 
this  will  give  some  idea  of  his  work  in  that  medium. 
It  is  impressive  in  its  figures,  that  stand  so  well 
and  have  some  thickness  as  well  as  width  and 
height.     The  drawing  leaves  something  to  be  de- 
sired, as  witness  the  figure  of  Christ  or  the  hands  of 
those  below.     The  colour  has  depth  and  is  now 


BAILLY,  DAVID  11 

harmonious,  whatever  it  was  originally.  Notice 
the  blue  of  the  sky  and  the  red  robe  at  right  for 
their  colour  quality. 

11281  Ansano  di  Pietro.  Life  of  St.  Jerome.  A  series 
1132  J  of  panels  showing  scenes  from  the  life  of  St.  Jerome, 
given  with  simplicity  and  charm,  some  knowledge 
of  movement,  and  good  colour.  In  No.  1131, 
note  the  little  figure  of  St.  Jerome  in  the  sky  and 
the  well-drawn  black  robes;  in  No.  1129  there  is 
a  fine  landscape,  with  hills  and  fruit-bearing  trees; 
in  No.  1128  the  angel's  wings  have  been  rubbed 
off.  All  of  the  panels  look  a  little  modern  in  their 
gildings. 

1134.  An tonello  da  Messina.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Here 
*  is  Antonello  at  his  best  in  his  half-Flemish  half- 
Italian  style.  There  is  infinite  detail,  even  to  the 
scar  on  the  upper  lip  and  the  day's  growth  of  beard 
on  the  face ;  but  also  great  bulk  and  breadth  in  the 
head  and  the  face.  It  is  the  powerful  face  of  some 
swashbuckler,  with  a  heavy  jaw  and  a  bulldog 
chin — a  man  of  determination  and  power.  What 
an  eye  he  has!  What  a  fearless  presence!  It  is 
comparable  in  type  to  Verrocchio's  Colleoni,  at 
Venice. 

"The  ' Portrait  of  a  Man/  the  record  reads, 

With  Antonello's  signature  below. 
The  rest  is  blank.     The  man,  his  name,  his  deeds, 
All  died  in  Venice  centuries  ago." 

Done  with  well-nigh  perfect  drawing  and  modelling. 
And  with  wonderful  simplicity.  Even  colour  is 
almost  eliminated  in  favour  of  the  portrait  reality. 
2303A.  Bailly,  David.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.  A 
good  head  that  emerges  out  of  its  black  back- 
ground effectively.  The  drawing  rambles  a  bit. 


12  THE  LOUVRE 

1150.  Baroccio,  Federico.    Madonna  «*  Glory.    This 
painter  belongs  to  the  Decadence,  but  is  by  no 
means   a  decadent  in   the  matter  of  colour   nor 
in  sure,  swift  handling.     He  formed  himself  upon 
Correggio,  and  in  turn   helped  form  the  style  of 
so  great  a  man  as  Rubens.     As  noted  elsewhere, 
Rubens   probably   got   something   of   his   surface 
brilliancy,  his  flesh  notes,  and  his  fluid  handling 
from  Baroccio.     The  picture  has  been  too  much 
cleaned  and  repainted. 

1149.   The  Circumcision.     A  brighter  Baroccio  than 

No.  1150.  It  shows  his  fed-on-roses  flesh  better. 
Notice  the  colour  and  handling  of  the  yellow  and 
red  robes.  It  is  not  a  bad  picture  and  indicates  that 
the  skill  of  the  Italians  endured  after  their  taste 
had  fled. 

1151.  Bartolo   di   Fredi.      Presentation  in  the  Temple. 

It  has  the  rich,  decorative  effect  that  comes  from 
using  gold  patterns  with  colour.  Notice  the  robes, 
the  borders,  and  the  haloes.  The  drawing  is,  of 
course,  not  that  of  the  Renaissance,  but  it  is  com- 
plete for  its  time.  An  attempt  to  show  church 
architecture  as  an  envelope  for  the  figures,  but  not 
too  successful. 

1153.     Bartolommeo,      Fra.       The     Annunciation.       A 

*  novel  treatment  of  the  Annunciation,  with  the 
flying  angel  and  dove  at  the  top  of  the  canvas  and 
saints  below  grouped  on  either  side.  It  is  rich  in 
greens,  oranges,  and  reds,  and  is  quite  as  effective 
in  its  shadows  and  atmosphere  as  in  its  colour. 
The  robes  are  beautifully  drawn  and  the  kneeling 
figures  are  not  only  fine  as  art  but  also  fine  in  relig- 
ious feeling.  An  excellent  small  example  of  the 
painter.  It  is,  unfortunately,  somewhat  injured. 


BELLINI,  SCHOOL  OF  13 

1154.    Madonna  Enthroned.     A  large  picture  with  a 

*  predominance  of  blue-green  colouring  which  the 
brighter  reds  and  oranges  fail  to  warm  or  temper. 
The  composition  was  a  favourite  one  with  thepainter 
— a  pyramidal  pattern  with  supporting  saints  on 
either  side  and  a  crescent  of  angels  at  the  top.  The 
drawing  is  excellent  all  through  and  the  drapery 
very  well  handled.  Notice  how  the  green  dress  of 
the  saint  at  the  right  falls  from  the  waist  across 
the  knees.  And  how  beautiful  are  the  folds  in  the 
light  dress  of  the  woman  kneeling  at  the  left! 
What  robust  characters  in  the  men !  What  graceful 
lines  in  the  rainbow-winged  cherubs  at  the  top! 
A  fine  picture,  but  it  has  neither  the  fineness  nor 
the  quality  in  colour,  shadow,  and  atmosphere  of 
the  smaller  No.  1153  hanging  next  it. 

N.  N.  Bellegambe,  Jean.  (Attributed.)  St.  Adrien.  A 
full-length  figure  of  the  saint  standing,  given  with 
much  dignity  and  grace.  Carefully  drawn  and  very 
effective,  but  without  the  minutiae  of  the  early 
Flemish  painters.  Notice  the  free  drawing  and 
painting  of  the  decorative  pattern  on  the  armour 
as  well  as  in  the  background  figures  and  houses. 
An  excellent  work  with  much  beauty  of  style  about 
it.  The  attribution  is  merely  a  guess. 

1156.  Bellini,   Gentile.     Portrait  of  Two  Men.     It  is 

similar  to  the  picture  No.  12  in  the  Berlin  Gallery, 
there  put  down  to  Giovanni  Bellini's  School.  This 
work  is  not  by  Gentile,  but  by  some  one  close  to 
the  young  Cariani,  as  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  sur- 
mised some  years  ago.  Much  cleaned. 

1157.  Bellini,   Gentile   (School   of).     Reception  of  a 
Venetian  Ambassador  at  Cairo.      A  repainted  pic- 
ture, but  interesting  still  as  showing  what  the  early 


14  THE  LOUVRE 

Venetians  knew  about  sunlight,  sky,  and  air,  as 
also  for  costumes  and  architecture.  It  is  rather 
coarsely  done. 

1158.  Bellini,  Giovanni.  Madonna  with  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Sebastian.  A  smooth  and  rather  attractive 
work,  in  the  style  of  Bellini,  but  hardly  by  his  hand. 
The  suggestion,  made  years  ago  by  Morelli,  that  it 
was  by  Bellini's  Ravennese  imitator  Rondinelli, 
is  still  pertinent,  though  a  study  of  Rondinelli's 
other  work  hardly  lends  confirmation.  The  Ma- 
donna is  a  pleasing  type  as  is  also  the  girlish 
St.  Sebastian.  The  colour  is  harmonious  and  the 
drawing  not  bad. 

1158A. Portrait   of  a   Man.     A  very  noble  portrait 

*  showing  both  strength  and  beauty.  It  is  a  little 
sharp  in  the  outlines,  but  exceedingly  well  drawn 
in  the  face.  It  is  also  fine  in  colouring.  The  win- 
ning feature  of  it  is  its  strong  characterisation,  its 
frankness  of  statement,  its  evident  honesty.  It  is 
quite  different  from  the  portrait  of  the  Doge  Lore- 
dano,  being  more  mature-looking,  which  excites 
the  suspicion  that  perhaps  it  is  by  a  later  man  than 
Bellini;  but  one  cannot  be  certain  about  that. 

N.  N.  The  Saviour  Blessing.     This  is  the  risen  Sav- 

**  iour,  the  Christ  of  the  tomb,  and  for  that  reason, 
probably,  he  is  portrayed  in  white  with  pallid 
flesh,  the  hands,  brows,  and  side  marked  with 
blood.  It  is  a  very  pathetic  figure,  showing  suffer- 
ing, humiliation,  attenuation.  The  hands  are  just 
as  frail  as  the  body,  and  the  face  carries  out  the 
same  idea  of  a  presence  that  is  more  spiritual  than 
corporeal.  Even  the  landscape  and  the  sky  are 
more  or  less  ghostlike,  unearthly,  not  sun-illumined. 
The  white  robe  that  clings  to  the  shrunken  figure, 


BENOZZO  GOZZOLI  15 

the  thin  hand  that  clasps  the  book,  the  hand  raised 
in  blessing,  the  sad  eyes,  the  half -parted  lips,  are  all 
a  part  of  the  tragic  tale  told  with  great  feeling,  be- 
lief, earnestness,  truth.  Before  such  a  picture  one 
hardly  wishes  to  think  of  technique  or  decoration. 
And  yet  how  inevitably  the  instinct  of  the  painter 
placed  that  fine  white  against  the  blue  and  edged  it 
with  dull  gold!  How  beautiful  the  picture  is  in 
colour,  and  how  appropriate  that  beauty  of  colour 
is  to  the  theme  portrayed!  How  tenderly  he  has 
drawn  the  eyes  and  mouth  and  painted  the  matted 
hair!  How  beautifully  he  touched  the  head  with 
radiating  lines  of  gold !  It  is  a  beautiful  Bellini — 
even  a  great  one — and  comparable  in  its  intensity 
of  feeling  to  the  fine  Pieta  at  the  Brera,  Milan 
(No.  214),  and  the  Blood  of  the  Redeemer  in  the 
London  National  Gallery  (No.  1233).  All  three 
pictures  have  the  same  tragic  quality.  A  recent 
acquisition  by  the  Louvre. 

Benozzo  Gozzoli.  Triumph  of  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas.  A  scattered  composition  that  is  more 
of  a  map  or  diagram  than  a  picture,  but  with  some 
strong  heads  and  faces  in  it  and  some  good  draw- 
ing and  colouring.  Notice  the  heads  and  robes  in 
the  groups  at  bottom  where  the  drapery  is  very 
uneasy  and  the  floor  cloth  waves  in  folds.  Attrac- 
tive evangelists  are  at  the  top. 

.    (Attributed.)   Madonna,  Child,  and  Saints. 

It  has  much  of  Fra  Angelico's  influence  about  it 
and  is  some  sort  of  a  school  piece  emanating  from 
him.  It  is  prosaic  and  lacks  spirit  besides  being 
a  little  summary  in  drawing.  The  figures  on  the 
frame  and  the  predella  are  the  most  interesting 
parts  of  the  altar-piece,  but  even  this  work  (as  in  the 


16  THE  LOUVRE 

central  panel)  is  too  poor  in  drawing  for  either  Fra 
Angelico  or  Benozzo.  Look  at  the  hands. 

1167.  Bianchi,  Francesco.  Madonna  and  Child  with 
Saints.  A  fine  altar-piece,  possibly  by  some  Fer- 
rarese  painter  whose  name  is  unknown  to  history. 
It  is  nearer  to  the  altar-piece  by  Ercole  Grandi 
(No.  1119)  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  than 
to  any  other  picture.  It  also  shows  the  influence 
of  Francia.  It  is  cold  in  the  blues  and  the  faces 
have  been  cleaned  until  they  look  flat  and  wooden, 
but  there  is  still  simple  composition  and  good  sen- 
timent. The  saints  are  fine  characters,  the  archi- 
tecture and  landscape  are  excellent,  and  the  little 
angels  playing  on  instruments  at  the  foot  are  quite 
charming.  The  white  medallion  on  the  base  of  the 
throne  is  said  to  be  a  peculiar  Ferrarese  ear-mark, 
but  you  will  see  it  in  the  Albertinelli  (No.  1114) 
hanging  near  at  hand. 

2330.  Bol,  Ferdinand.  Portrait  of  a  Mathematician. 
A  good  portrait  with  well-drawn  forehead,  eyes, 
mouth,  and  cheeks.  The  surface  has  been  cleaned 
but  the  drawing  still  holds  fairly  well. 

2328.  Philosopher  in  Meditation.  A  picture  not 

showing  Bol  at  his  best,  but  curious  because  the 
philosopher  is  the  same  model  as  in  the  Bol  pic- 
ture (No.  48)  in  the  Brussels  Gallery  and  identical 
with  the  man  called  Rembrandt's  brother  in  a 
picture  by  Rembrandt  at  The  Hague  (No.  560). 
It  is  odd  that  the  alleged  Rembrandt  pictures 
should  need  to  borrow  Bol's  models. 

1668.  Bolognese  School.  Judgment  of  Paris.  Rather 
hard  in  drawing  (notice  the  hands)  but  with  a  boy- 
ish immaturity  and  sincerity  that  is  amusing.  The 
landscape  is  as  crude  as  the  figures. 


BORGOGNONE  17 

1169.  Bol traffic,  Giovanni  Antonio.  The  Virgin  of 
the  Casio  Family.  A  large  and  rather  crudely 
drawn  picture  with  excellent  donors  at  right  and 
left  and  a  poor  angel  in  the  sky  that  seems  the 
afterthought  of  some  cleaning-room  artist.  The 
Child,  the  Madonna,  the  saint  are  all  somewhat 
wooden — that  is,  hard  in  surface. 

1171.  Bonifazio  dei  Pitati.  Holy  Family.  With  a 
fine  landscape  and  a  rich  colour  effect.  It  is  a 
half-arch  gathering  of  gaily  dressed  figures  under 
a  tree  and  columns,  with  a  bright  sky  on  either 

side. 

1178.  Bordone,  Paris.      Vertumnus  and  Pomona.      It  is 

hard  in  drawing  and  dry  in  handling.  Look  at  the 
ropy  hair  and  the  poor,  raspberry-coloured  gown. 
It  is  not  Bordone  at  his  best. 

1179.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  dark  but  very  accept- 
able portrait,  done  with  much  elegance  of  materials 
in  costume,  column,  and  curtain.     How  well  the 
mouth  and  eyes  are  drawn!     And  the  hands,  too, 
are  well  done.     The  red  patches  of  flesh  colour, 
peculiar  to  Bordone,  are  here. 

1181.  Borgognone,  II  (Ambrogio  Fossano).  Presenta- 
tion in  the  Temple.  In  Borgognone's  usual  vein, 
with  draperies  at  right  angles  as  regards  their  lines 
(see  the  blue  robe  of  the  Madonna)  and  something 
of  the  sentiment  and  the  sootiness  of  shadow  that 
are  associated  with  the  Milanese  School.  Somewhat 
hurt,  but  still  decorative  in  the  gilded  architecture 
and  the  fruit. 

1182     \ St.    Peter   and   St.    Augustine  with  Donors. 

1182A/Two  wings  of  an  altar-piece  with  saints  and 
donors.  The  portraits  of  the  kneeling  donors  are 


18  THE  LOUVRE 

very  good,  though  lead-hued  in  the  flesh,  as  is  usual 
with  Borgognone. 

1295.  Botticelli,  Sandro.     Madonna  of  the  Magnificat. 

Said  to  be  a  replica  of  the  one  in  the  Uffizi  (No. 
1267  bis).  It  is  probably  a  copy,  and  not  a  very 
good  one  at  that. 

1296.    Madonna,    Christ,   and  St.  John.     There   are 

various  reasons  for  supposing  it  is  not  by  Botti- 
celli, but  there  is  little  question  about  its  being  a 
picture  of  great  charm  and  beauty.     It  can  get 
along  without  a  name.     In  refined  sensitiveness  of 
feeling  it  is  wonderful.    All  three  figures  are  a  little 
abnormal  in  their  intensity.     The  drawing  is  hurt 
by  cleaning  but  is  still  excellent,  and  the  colour  is 
perfect  in  serenity  and  charm.     What  beautiful 
haloes  and  what  lovely  flowers!    The  drawing  of 
the  tree  trunks  and  foliage  is  worthy  of  note. 
There  is   something   in   the  grey   trunks   against 
the  sky  that  suggests  Amico  di  Sandro,  as  also  in  the 
flowers,  the  drawing  of  the  noses,  the  eyes,  the 
mouths;  but  there  are  other  parts  of  it  that  suggest 
the  style  of  Fra  Filippo  with  Botticelli's  colour. 
A  beautiful  picture  whoever  did  it.      The  same 
painter  did  the   picture  No.  1303   in  the  Uffizi, 
there  ascribed  to  Botticelli. 

liovanni     Tornabuoni     and     the    Graces.      A 

broken  fragment  of  fresco  (on  the  Daru  staircase) 
which  has  still  great  beauty  about  it.  The  lovely 
types  with  wistful  faces,  the  appealing,  if  mannered, 
hands,  and  the  fluttering  draperies  are  all  moving 
forward  to  meet  the  chief  figure  at  the  right.  The 
action  is  rather  well  given  notwithstanding  the 
sharp  drawing.  The  colour  is  still  beautiful  al- 
though much  of  it  has  gone — especially  in  the  gold- 


BOTTICELLI,  SCHOOL  OF  19 

patterned  and  reddish  robe  in  the  centre.  The 
outlines  are  wonderful  in  their  rhythmic  flow,  re- 
peating and  supplementing  or  contrasting  with  one 
another.  Look  at  the  outlines  of  the  chins;  how 
arbitrary,  yet  how  beautiful  as  pure  line  they  are! 

Botticelli,  School  of.  Lorenzo  Tornabuoni  and 
the  Liberal  Arts.  A  companion  piece  to  No.  1297 
and  from  the  same  source  (the  Villa  Lemmi,  near 
Florence),  but  the  catalogue  seems  to  intimate  that 
it  is  not  entirely  by  Botticelli.  There  is  no  doubt 
he  inspired  it,  designed  it,  and  himself  did  the 
figure  of  Lorenzo  at  the  left  and  the  seated  figure 
at  the  right;  but  in  some  of  the  other  figures  the 
faces  seem  prettier  and  the  robes  smoother  than 
is  usual  with  Botticelli.  The  colour,  too,  seems 
not  so  delicate  as  in  No.  1297  though  excellent  in 
itself.  Perhaps  the  stronger  notes  of  colour  here 
are  due  to  less  abrasion  or  fading  of  hues.  In  any 
event,  there  is  no  certainty  that  Botticelli  did  not 
do  the  whole  work.  The  variation  from  No.  1297 
is  too  slight  to  draw  conclusions  from  with  any 
assurance. 

— Madonna  and  Child.  The  attribution  is 
questioned  by  many  critics.  Mr.  Berenson  thinks 
it  is  a  copy  by  Jacopo  del  Sellajo  of  a  lost  orig- 
inal by  Amico  di  Sandro.  This,  involving  as  it 
does  no  less  than  five  different  hypotheses  (1,  a 
copy;  2,  by  Jacopo;  3,  of  an  original;  4,  lost; 
5,  by  Amico,  who  is  a  figment  of  Mr.  Berenson's 
imagination),  may  be  thought  rather  far-fetched. 
But  the  drawing  is  practically  the  same  as  in  No. 
1663,  which  Mr.  Berenson  also  gives  to  Amico  di 
Sandro.  So  he  is  consistent  in  his  imaginings.  It 
is  a  good  picture — as  good  in  its  sky,  trees,  flowers, 


20  THE  LOUVRE 

and  the  two  fine  heads  in  the  background  as  some 
Botticellis.  The  Child  is  the  same  type  as  in  the 
Magnificat  here  (No.  1295).  By  the  same  hand 
is  a  Madonna  at  Chantilly  put  down  to  Filippo 
Lippi.  The  picture  has  been  overcleaned  but  still 
has  beauty  of  colour. 

2336.  Brekelenkam,  Quieringh  Gerritz.  Monk  Writ- 
ing. To  be  compared  (in  connection  with  the  work 
of  Gerard  Dou,  whom  he  followed)  with  the  pic- 
ture by  Rembrandt  of  a  Hermit  Reading  (No. 
2541A),  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the  painter  of  the 
latter  picture.  Otherwise  the  picture  is  of  no  great 
importance. 

1911.  Bril,  Paul.  Pan  and  Syrinx.  Rather  fine  in  the 
sky  and  distance  if  minute  and  finical  in  the  fore- 
ground. The  attribution  is  not  too  solidly  based. 
See  also  No.  1910  hanging  near  by. 

1184.    BronzhlO,    Angelo.      Portrait   of  a   Sculptor.      A 

rather  hard  figure  that  unhappily  stands  out  from 
the  air  of  the  room  at  the  back.  The  head  and  the 
face  are  hard,  too,  and  the  statuette  is  not  very 
well  held.  The  colour  is  sombre.  Bronzino  did 
better  things  than  this. 

1916.  Brouwer,  Adriaen.  The  Smoker.  A  piece  of 
pure  painter's  work  which  shows  how  sure  Brouwer 
was  in  the  handling  of  paint.  See  how  he  has 
dragged  it  around  the  nose,  and  on  the  cheek,  and 
rubbed  it  in  the  smoke.  The  same  smoker  appears 
in  a  picture  attributed  to  Frans  Hals  the  Younger 
in  the  Dresden  Gallery  (No.  1406).  See  also  the 
good  Brouwers  here  (Nos.  1915  and  1913). 

1925.  Brueghel,  Jan  the  Elder  (Velvet).  The  Bridge 
of  Talavera.  A  landscape  with  small  figures  in  the 


CALCAR  21 

foreground.  Done  with  much  feeling  for  the  pic- 
turesque and  with  good  colour  results.  See  also 
No.  1926. 

1919\ Paradise    and     The    Air.      With    much    good 

1920  /  painting  but  some  spottiness  in  the  small  objects. 
The  composition  is  rather  scattered. 

1917.  Brueghel,  Peter  the  Elder  (Peasant).  The 
t  *  Beggars.  What  a  piece  of  fresh  painting  and  de- 
lightful colour!  And  what  drawing!  There  are 
few  Netherland  pictures  in  the  Louvre  that  will 
go  beyond  it.  Never  mind  the  disagreeable  sub- 
ject ;  look  at  the  workmanship — the  handling.  The 
same  hand  did  the  Peasant  W7edding  (No.  717) 
at  Vienna.  The  Brueghels  are  confused  with  one 
another.  See  the  Vienna  notes  upon  them. 

1917A. The  Parable  of  the  Blind.      It  is  probably  a 

copy  of  Peasant  Brueghel  by  his  son,  but  it  is  a 
decent  piece  of  painting  nevertheless.  The  figures 
and  the  clothing  are  well  handled.  It  is  technical 
skill  with  some  distinction  even  in  the  copyist. 
With  a  landscape  that  is  not  too  well  done  in  the 
trees. 

N.  N.  Bruyn,  Barthel.  Portraits  of  Donors.  Two 
panels  of  some  excellence,  recently  acquired  by 
the  Louvre.  Good  both  as  portraiture  and  as 
decorative  art,  though  a  little  raw  in  the  interiors 
and  coats  of  arms.  They  are  probably  the  wings 
of  an  altar-piece.  In  Room  XV. 

1185.  Calcar  (Johann  von  Calcker).  Portrait  of  a 
Man.  A  well-executed  picture  that  for  some  reason 
fails  to  impress  one  as  perhaps  it  should.  Possibly 
there  is  too  much  clever  painting  in  costume  and 
not  enough  strength  of  impression  in  the  sitter. 


22  THE  LOUVRE 

Notice  how  well  the  hands  are  done.  The  head  also 
is  rightly  drawn  and  there  is  atmospheric  setting 
to  the  picture.  But  we  pass  it  by  without  any 
awakened  enthusiasm.  Attributed  to  Calcar,  an 
imitator  of  Titian,  but  who  knows  much  about 
Calcar  or  his  work?  And  where  are  the  other  pic- 
tures he  might  have  painted  ?  Are  they  masquerad- 
ing as  Titians  and  Pordenones  in  European  col- 
lections? 

1203.  Canaletto,  Giovanni  Antonio.  The  Salute  at 
Entrance  of  Grand  Canal.  A  large  and  rather  fine 
Canaletto,  with  much  truth  and  beauty  in  the  build- 
ings as  well  as  in  the  sky,  water,  shipping,  and 
figures.  This  is  the  painter  at  his  best,  with  artistic 
feeling  shown  even  in  such  small  things  as  the  black 
gondolas  in  the  middle  distance,  or  the  coloured 
groups  at  the  right.  The  sky  lofty,  with  cumulus 
clouds. 

1211.  Carpaccio,  Vittore.  St.  Stephen  Preaching  in 
Jerusalem.  Not  a  remarkable  Carpaccio,  compared 
with  his  pictures  in  Venice,  but  a  picture  with  good 
colour  effects  got  from  rich  robes,  from  a  naive,  ill- 
drawn  group  of  figures  in  the  foreground,  and  from 
architecture  at  the  back.  Carpaccio  always  pleases 
by  his  frank,  almost  boyish  way  of  seeing  and  doing. 
Notice  the  seated  figures  in  front  and  the  wander- 
ing folk  in  pretty  garments  at  the  back.  And  at 
the  left  the  intent,  listening  quality  of  the  large 
figure  with  hands  clasped  behind  him.  The  draw- 
ing in  the  figures  is  rather  bad  and  the  landscape 
is  crude.  Possibly  Carpaccio  was  not  entirely  re- 
sponsible for  this.  There  is  some  school  work  in  it. 

1252A.  Catena,  Vincenzo.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  A  min- 
utely drawn  head  (with  a  sharp  nose  and  pursed 


CIMABUE  23 

mouth)  of  some  Venetian  of  rank.  An  early  por- 
trait, and  rather  good  without  being  profound. 
The  attribution  is  not  so  certain  as  it  seems.  Ca- 
tena was  usually  not  so  small  in  his  drawing. 

1259.  Cima,  Giovanno  Batista.     The  Virgin  and  Child. 

**  One  of  the  best  of  all  the  Cimas  in  its  complete- 
ness, its  oneness  of  effect,  its  good  colour,  and  its 
equally  good  landscape  with  its  feeling  for  distance 
and  space.  To  the  landscape  and  sky  one  returns 
with  delight.  They  are  serene,  peaceful,  charming. 
The  figures  are  honest  with  no  excess  of  sentiment, 
they  are  accurately  drawn  and  handsomely  robed, 
and  they  hold  their  place  in  the  picture  without 
effort  or  strain.  The  drawing  is  sharp  (notably 
in  the  hands  and  edges  of  the  drapery)  but  one 
does  not  feel  it  uncomfortably.  And  what  colour 
in  the  green  water,  supplementing  the  green  of  the 
robes,  and  varying  the  green  of  the  uplands !  The 
baldacchino — well,  the  baldacchino  is  not  the  best 
part  of  the  picture. 

1260.  Cimabue,      Giovanni.     Madonna     and    Angels. 

The  attribution  is  disputed,  but  there  is  no  doubt 
about  this  picture  being  in  the  Cimabue  style. 
It  shows  the  growth  up  and  out  of  the  Byzantine 
manner,  which,  however,  is  still  apparent  in  the 
green  shadows  of  the  flesh,  the  long  face  and  nose, 
the  thin,  slit-like  eyes,  the  long  fingers,  the  sharply 
lined  and  folded  drapery.  The  whole  group  of  the 
figures  with  the  chair  does  not  recede  but  slips 
down  and  almost  out  of  the  picture.  The  angels 
are  supposed  to  be  surrounding  and  enclosing  the 
chair,  but  in  reality  they  stand  one  upon  another. 
There  is  no  perspective,  no  third  dimension,  no 
air,  no  light.  The  angel  heads,  where  they  are 


24  THE  LOUVRE 

turned  aside,  show  a  very  slight  study  of  nature, 
or  rather  a  looking  away  for  a  moment  from  the 
Byzantine  manikin,  which  had  been  copied  for 
years.  The  colour  is  primitive  but  probably  now 
dulled  somewhat. 

315.  Claude  Lorraine.    David  and  Samuel.     A  warm 
Claude,  almost  Turneresque  in  tone,  with  some 
good  air  and  sky.     A  good  landscape  for  all  its  aca- 
demic, stilted  quality. 

312.  -  —  Village  Holiday.  A  picture  that  Turner  must 
have  admired,  if  he  ever  saw  it.  In  the  same  vein 
as  No.  315  and  of  much  beauty  in  its  air,  sky,  and 
distance. 

311.    Campo  Vacdno,  Rome.     Full  of  light  and  air 

with  a  fine  colour  harmony.  Claude  seems  here 
to  get  more  fine  effect  out  of  buildings  than  he 
does  out  of  trees  or  hills. 

316.    Ulysses  Restores   Chryseis   to  Her  Father.      A 

seaport  with  a  yellow  sky  and  beetling  architec- 
ture. Quite  in  the  vein  of  work  afterward  fol- 
lowed with  greater  artistic  effect  by  Turner.  See 
also  No.  314. 

2738.  Cleve,  Juste  van  der  Beke  van  (Master  of  the 
Death  of  the  Virgin).  Deposition.  A  picture  in 
three  compartments  with  a  St.  Francis  above  and 
a  Last  Supper  below.  The  Supper  is  perhaps  the 
best  part  of  it,  with  its  good  drawing  and  warm 
colour.  The  central  panel  is  a  little  dull  although 
it  has  some  good  feeling.  It  was  done  by  a  differ- 
ent hand  from  the  one  that  did  the  top  and  bottom 
panels.  Possibly  Cleve  did  it.  The  figure  of  the 
Magdalen  with  outspread  hands  is  the  same  type 
that  appears  in  the  picture  No.  537  in  the  Brussels 


CLOUET,  FRANfOIS  25 

Gallery,  there  ascribed  to  Claeszoon  (Le  Maitre 
d'Oultremont).  See  note  under  Munich  Gallery 
picture  by  Cleve. 

2738A.  Cleve,  School  of.  A  Monk  Offering  His  Heart 
to  Christ.  The  picture  comes  nearer  to  the  School 
of  Gerard  David  or  Patinir  than  Juste  van  Cleve. 
The  Madonna  and  Child  here  are  brighter-hued 
than  a  David  or  Patinir  and  more  like  the  picture 
at  Brussels  (No.  349)  also  put  down  as  by  Cleve. 
But  the  landscape  points  directly  to  Patinir. 

126.  Clouet,  Jean  (called  Jannet).  Portrait  of 
Francis  I.  Of  the  same  flattened  character  in  face 
and  figure  as  No.  1007  but  not  by  the  same  painter. 
The  hands  here  are  fairly  well  drawn,  the  dress  is 
regal  in  its  magnificence,  the  background  is  a  rich 
red  pattern.  The  face  and  the  neck  have  been  too 
much  cleaned.  Another  Francis  I  (No.  127)  here 
shown  may  be  the  original,  and  this  picture  a  repe- 
tition of  it  on  a  larger  scale  by  some  one  of  the 
school. 

128.    Clouet,   Francois.     Portrait  of  Charles   IX.     A 

*  small  full-length  with  much  beauty  of  detail,  col- 
our, and  character.     It  is  a  marvel  of  exact  drawing 
and  is  almost  certainly  by  the  hand  of  the  leader 
in  this  Clouet  portraiture,  whoever  he  may  be. 

130.    -    —Portrait  of  Elizabeth  of  Austria.     Smooth  in 

*  the  surfaces,  transparent  in  the  glazes,  fine  in  the 
colour,   and   much   ornamented   in   the   costume. 
What  a  wonderful  costume!     The  hands  are  little 
more   than   suggested   as  colour.     It  is   a  lovely 
portrait  of  a  proud  and  handsome  woman.     One  of 
the  best  portraits  in  this  sixteenth-century  French 
room.     Probably  by  the  painter  of  No.  128. 


26  THE  LOUVRE 

129.   Portrait  of  Henri  II.     It  may  not  be  by  the 

*  painter  of  No.  128,  but  in  any  event  it  is  a  good 
portrait.     How  well  the  figure  stands!     And  how 
fine  the  type,  the  costume,  and  the  suggested  en- 
velope of  air! 

127A.    Portrait  of  Pierre  Outhe.      A  portrait  of  much 

*  force  with  a  strong  Clouet  tang  about  it.      It  is 
pretty   certainly   his   work.     Signed    1562,   which 
helps  corroborate  its  internal  evidence.     An  excel- 
lent portrait   though   now   a   little    stained    and 
cleaned. 

133A  \  Clouet  Of  Navarre.  Portraits  of  Louis  de  Saint- 
134  /  Gelais  and  The  Duchesse  de  Roannois.  Smooth 
in  the  surfaces  and  rather  pretty  portraits.  Super- 
ficially judged,  they  seem  to  be  near  the  painter 
of  No.  128,  but  they  are  put  down  to  Clouet  of 
Navarre,  a  supposed  brother  of  Jean  Clouet,  who 
was  the  father  of  Francois  Clouet.  The  Clouets 
and  their  works  need  illumination  before  any  one 
can  pronounce  on  their  pictures  with  certainty. 
In  the  meantime  we  may  admire  the  pictures  with- 
out fear,  for  they  are  very  good. 

2737.  Cologne,  School  of.  Deposition.  A  fine  altar- 
*  piece  (the  centre  of  a  triptych,  the  wings  having 
disappeared)  now  much  hurt  by  the  bright  gilt 
panels  put  in  at  the  top.  Here  is  religious  feeling, 
pathos,  tragedy — what  you  will — of  a  very  sincere 
kind;  and  with  it  there  is  much  beauty  of  detail 
and  splendour  of  colour.  The  drawing  in  the 
hands  is  cramped,  the  drapery  mannered  in  its 
folds,  the  action  constrained;  but  in  spite  of  that 
it  is  an  excellent  decorative  altar-piece.  Notice 
the  beauty  of  the  reds  and  whites,  the  rich  brocades, 
the  old-gold  ground.  Variously  attributed  to  Lucas 


CORREGGIO  27 

van  Leyden,  Metsys,  and  others,  without  preju- 
dice to  the  picture. 

\ Episodes    in    the  Life  of  St.   Ursula.     How 

/  very  decorative  in  robes,  jewels,  gilding,  and 
architectural  framings!  Nor  are  the  figures  with- 
out dignity,  standing  erect  as  they  do  and  showing 
the  repeated  perpendicular  line.  They  have  not 
the  nobility  of  the  Carpaccio  figures  and  yet  fall 
but  little  short  of  them.  Look  at  the  young  king  in 
No.  2738D  or  St.  Ursula  in  the  companion  picture. 

1117.  Correggio,  Antonio  Allegri  da.  Mystic  Mar- 
riage of  St.  Catherine.  One  of  the  most  beautiful 
of  all  the  Correggios.  The  spirit  of  it  is  not  re- 
ligious but  simply  natural.  These  people  are 
bothered  with  neither  humanism  nor  ecclesiasticism, 
with  neither  history  nor  philosophy,  nor  even  the 
humdrum  of  social  existence.  They  are  shepherds 
in  Arcadia,  gathered  together  for  a  romp  and  a  frolic. 
Notice  the  shepherd  at  the  back,  with  his  smile, 
that  seems  the  key-note  to  the  spirit  of  the  group. 
The  Madonna  and  Child  are  just  as  earthly  and 
human  as  the  shepherd.  The  St.  Catherine  seems 
the  only  shy  and  quiet  one.  How  charming  she  is! 
The  hands — look  at  the  gathering  and  grouping  of 
the  hands  as  a  focal  point  for  the  eye.  They  are 
the  centre  of  the  composition,  which  is  made  up 
of  masses  of  light  surrounded  by  dark.  The  colour 
is  very  lovely,  and  the  drawing  very  good  in  a 
large,  comprehensive  sense — that  is  to  say,  the 
feeling  of  bulk  and  body  in  the  figures  is  well  given, 
though  certain  outlines  may  lack  in  accuracy.  The 
handling  is  free  for  the  painter  and  his  time,  as  one 
may  see  in  the  beautifully  painted  robes.  And 
what  beautiful  hair!  A  superb  landscape  at  the 


28  THE  LOUVRE 

back.  The  faces  have  been  too  much  cleaned  and 
the  whole  picture  has  been  retouched  in  places,  but 
beauty  is  still  in  it. 

1118.    Antiope.     The  figure  of  Antiope  as  a  central 

**  spot  of  light  (with  repeated  spots  of  lesser  light  in 
the  Satyr  and  the  Cupid,  and  the  whole  group  sur- 
rounded by  cool  darks)  is  really  wonderful.  It 
was  the  Correggio  convention  to  compose  in  that 
way,  and  the  picture  as  a  pattern  of  light  upon 
dark  carries  effectively  at  a  distance.  But  as  a 
representation  of  reality  the  form  of  Antiope  is 
not  very  convincing.  The  lines  seem  awkward, 
and  for  a  figure  supposed  to  be  sleeping,  almost 
impossible.  There  is  a  feeling  of  make-believe 
about  it,  as  though  the  model  were  posing  for  effec- 
tive lines.  This  is  also  apparent  in  the  Cupid, 
who  is  trying  to  sleep  but  is  wide  awake  through 
the  discomfort  of  his  position.  The  drawing  of 
the  Cupid  is  curious,  the  foreshortening  questiona- 
ble, the  body  only  to  be  surmised,  the  knees  and 
feet  very  good.  So,  too,  with  Antiope.  The  neck 
and  the  right  shoulder  are  odd,  the  nose  and  the 
mouth  protrusive,  the  feet  and  legs  well  given.  The 
lines  of  Antiope's  figure  are  repeated  in  the  Satyr 
(Jupiter)  and  contrasted  in  the  Cupid,  with  a  re- 
sultant strengthening  of  the  Antiope.  As  colour 
the  picture  is  cool — too  much  so,  perhaps.  The 
handling  cannot  be  judged  because  of  much  clean- 
ing and  repainting,  from  which  the  picture  has 
suffered.  The  landscape  suggestion  at  the  right  is 
excellent.  It  is  a  masterpiece,  but  the  present  gen- 
eration does  not  rave  over  it  as  did  Thomas  Cou- 
ture and  his  contemporaries.  What  is  worse,  it 
does  not  even  look  at  it — which  is  something  of  a 
pity. 


CRANACH  THE  ELDER  29 

1261.  Costa,  Lorenzo.  Court  of  Isabella  d'Este.  This 
picture  is  less  interesting  in  its  figures  than  in  its 
landscape — something  that  Francia  and  Costa  de- 
veloped to  a  remarkable  degree  at  Bologna.  Their 
work  there  in  the  St.  Cecilia  Chapel  is  still  bear- 
ing witness  to  their  extraordinary  early  success. 
The  landscape  should  be  compared  with  the  Bologna 
frescoes.  The  light  here  is  dull  and  somewhat  cold ; 
but  what  a  radical  departure  in  trees,  mountains, 
water,  sky,  air  from  the  work  of,  say,  Perugino! 
The  landscape  is  a  lovely  ground  upon  which  the 
small  figures  are  little  more  than  graceful,  agreea- 
ble spots  of  colour.  The  half-nude  figure  with  the 
bow,  at  the  right,  should  be  compared  with  the 
Costa  full-length  nude  at  Budapest  (No.  124). 
This  landscape  was  done  for  the  same  room  in  the 
Mantuan  palace  of  Isabella  d'Este  as  No.  1567,  by 
Perugino,  in  this  gallery. 

N.  N.  Coter,  Colin  de.  The  Trinity.  This  picture  is 
related  to  what  is  now  called  the  "  School  of  Robert 
Campin,"  or  the  Master  of  Flemalle.  Compare  it 
with  the  Frankfort  picture  (No.  102-104)  by  the 
Master  of  Flemalle,  or  two  panels  in  the  Hermitage 
(Nos.  447  and  448)  put  down  to  the  School  of  Van 
der  Weyden.  They  are  all  closely  allied.  This 
Louvre  picture,  though  stringy  and  angular,  is 
well  done. 

2703.  Cranach  the  Elder,  Lucas.  Venus.  One  of  the 
familiar  figures  that  Cranach  drew  a  number  of 
times.  As  pure  outline  drawing  it  is  attractive. 
Notice  the  town  under  the  brow  of  the  mountain 
with  its  reflection  in  the  pretty  little  lake. 

2703A. Portrait  of  a  Man.     In  Cranach's  style,  and 

a  fairly  good  work.     The  hands  are  cramped,  the 


30  THE  LOUVRE 

face  a  little  hot  in  colour,  the  figure  very  flat. 
There  are  suggestions  of  the  younger  Cranach  about 
it,  especially  in  the  ill-drawn  hands  and  the  pinched 
face. 

2705.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     The  miniature-like  work 

in  the  drawing  of  the  hair,  beard,  and  fur  collar 
would  suggest  an  early  example  of  Cranach.  The 
Germanic  type  is  given  with  that  truth  which  lacks 
the  third  dimension.  It  has  no  depth  nor  thickness. 
Notice  the  flatness  of  the  hat  and  figure.  The 
colour  is  agreeable.  Probably  by  the  elder  Cranach. 
See  also  No.  2704. 

N.  N.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Girl.  A  beautiful  pic- 
ture. It  is  really  little  more  than  black  and  white, 
but  it  owes  much  of  its  beauty  to  the  fine  quality 
of  the  blacks  and  their  relation  to  the  whites.  A 
naive  type.  This  is  Cranach  at  his  best.  Look 
at  the  beautifully  drawn  little  hands  and  the  lovely 
painting  of  the  hair. 

1263.  Credi,    Lorenzo    di.     Madonna  and   Child   with 
Saints.     Quite  in  the  style  of  Lorenzo,  with  his 
sentiment  and  types — both  of  them  a  little  weak. 
The  robes  are  good  and  the  architecture  interesting, 
but  the  colour  is  forbidding  and  the  regularity  of 
the  work  is  prosaic.     Vasari  says  it  was  "  the  best 
work  Lorenzo  ever  made,"  but  then  Vasari  was 
given  to  the  superlative. 

1264.    Christ  and  the  Magdalen.     A  slight  but  rather 

attractive  picture  with  good   draperies   and  pic- 
turesque trees.     Another  picture  like  it  is  in  the 
Uifizi.     This  one  has  more  colour  in  the  flesh  and 
robes  than  usual  and  is  not  so  artificial  in  feeling 
as  the  average  Lorenzo. 


DAVID,  GERARD  31 

2343.  Cuyp,   Aelbert.     Riding  Oat.     A  better  picture 
than  No.  2342,  with  good  horses  and  riders  and  a 
fine  landscape.     The  sky   and   clouds   should   be 
noticed  for  their  excellence.     How  well  the  men 
sit  their  horses,  and  what  fine  types  they  are! 

2342.  -  —Starting  for  a  Ride.  With  good  figures,  cos- 
tumes, horses,  and  landscape.  A  modified  diagonal 
composition  which  Cuyp  possibly  got  from  some 
one  such  as  Van  Goyen.  There  is  some  air  in  the 
picture,  though  most  of  it  has  been  rubbed  out  by 
cleaning. 

2341.    Landscape.     A  fine  sky  with  rising,  cumulus 

clouds  and  good  atmosphere  between  the  fore- 
ground and  the  distant  city.  Notice  the  bulk  and 
weight  of  the  cow  lying  down.  There  is  a  yellow 
sunset,  and  at  the  back  a  Dutch  city,  picturesquely 
given. 

2344.  -    — Portraits  of  Children.     The  painting  is  smooth 
but  effective,  the  colour  yellowish  but  agreeable, 
the  drawing  large  and  quite  right.     It  is  perhaps 
prettified  in  its  types  and  lacks  in  strong  character- 
isation. 

1957.  David,  Gerard.  Marriage  in  Cana.  A  picture 
*  that  has  been  attributed  to  almost  every  painter 
of  the  early  Flemish  School  but  is  still  looking  for 
its  master.  Mr.  Weale  thinks  it  was  finished  by 
Isenbrandt,  which  may  be  true,  but  the  picture 
is  too  good  for  various  hands  to  have  painted  upon 
it.  The  draperies  are  large  and  full,  the  colour 
clear,  the  architecture  in  the  distance  quite  true. 
Look  at  the  figure  in  red  at  the  table  and  the  flowers 
back  of  her;  at  the  still-life,  the  robes.  The  pic- 
ture is  hardly  a  mixture.  Besides,  what  does  Mr. 


32  THE  LOUVRE 

Weale  or  any  one  else  know  about  the  work  of 
Isenbrandt  ?  He  is  only  a  name.  This  work 
comes  very  close  to  David  as  we  now  know  him. 

2348.  Dou,  Gerard.  The  Dropsical  Woman.  A  glassy, 
enamelled  Dou  in  his  popular  style,  with  much  de- 
tail. Poor  in  colour  and  cold  in  light.  And  it  was 
sold  in  the  eighteenth  century  for  30,000  florins! 
There  are  fashions  in  art  shops  as  elsewhere. 

1985.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  Portrait  of  Jean  Grusset 
Richardot.  A  portrait  of  commanding  excellence 
and  superb  aplomb.  It  is  certainty  itself  in  the 
fine  head  of  the  man  with  its  noble  forehead 
and  beautifully  drawn  eyes,  well-modelled  nose, 
and  suggested  mouth.  How  very  serene  and  well 
poised  the  man  appears!  The  landscape  back  of 
him  is  excellent — almost  beyond  Van  Dyck's  best. 
The  boy  may  have  been  an  afterthought.  He  does 
not  fit  in  the  picture  any  too  well.  His  forehead  is 
problematical,  while  the  eyes  are  rather  ill  drawn. 
Some  discrepancy  in  dates  leads  the  catalogue  to 
doubt  whether  Van  Dyck  did  the  picture,  but  the 
dates  are  more  likely  to  be  wrong  than  the  picture. 
It  is  in  Van  Dyck's  manner,  particularly  in  the 
man's  forehead,  eyes,  nose,  and  cheeks. 

1983.    Portrait  of  the  Artist.     By  no  means  his  best 

work.  It  is  carelessly  done  (see  the  moustache  and 
mouth),  and  has  been  cleaned  and  somewhat  re- 
painted. There  is  a  certain  air  of  romance,  bra- 
vado, devil-may-care  about  it,  but  as  art  it  is  not  a 
great  effort. 

1972.    Portrait  of  Francois  de  Moncade.     With  some 

heat  in  the  face  and  curious  drawing  in  the  left 
eye,  but  nevertheless  a  considerable  portrait.  It 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  33 

is  done  in  the  painter's  hasty  manner.  He  exe- 
cuted several  portraits  of  this  man.  No.  1971  in 
this  gallery  shows  him  on  horseback — a  larger  but 
less  effective  picture. 

1975.  -    —Portrait  of  the  Duke  of  Richmond.     There  is 
little   about   it   to   indicate    Van   Dyck's   brush. 
Look  at  the  clumsy  drawing  of  the  eyes  and  eye- 
lids, the  stuck-on  nose,  the  tight  little  mouth,  and 
the  thoroughly  commonplace  painting  of  the  hair, 
the  shirt,  and  the  breeches. 

1974.    Portrait  of  a  Lady  and  Her  Daughter.     In  the 

painter's  courtly  style,  done  with  care,  and  with 
good  effect.  The  face  of  the  lady  is  beautifully 
drawn,  as  are  also  the  aristocratic  hands.  What  an 
attractive  personality !  The  little  child,  more  com- 
monplace in  colouring,  hardly  belongs  to  so  dig- 
nified a  composition,  but  is  not  obtrusive.  The 
child's  face  is  more  freely  done  than  the  lady's. 
The  picture  is  well  held  together.  Notice  the  paint- 
ing of  the  black  dress  near  the  knees,  and  the  right 
placing  of  the  golden  curtain  back  of  the  lady's 
head.  A  fine  Van  Dyck,  done  with  grace  as  well 
as  truth,  nobility  of  mien  and  carriage  as  well  as 
life. 

1976.  -    —Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  bit  careless  in  the  right 
eye  and  the  left  wrist,  but  it  has  presence  about  it, 
and  some  painter's  enthusiasm  in  the  doing  of  it. 
Also  there  is  some  richness  of  colour.     The  handling 
is  still  apparent. 

1967.   -    —Portrait  of  Charles  I.     The  painter  has  ex- 

**      celled  this  in  simple  portraiture,  but  as  a  portrait 

and   picture   combined  this  group  is  perhaps  his 

masterpiece.     It  is  fine  in  composition,  and  the 


34  THE  LOUVRE 

landscape  at  the  back  is  beyond  reproach  as  a 
pattern.  Charles  himself  is  well  drawn,  and  stands 
well  without  much  pose  or  pretence  or  consciousness. 
He  is  very  well  painted.  Notice  how  deftly  the 
textures  are  rendered  in  the  silk  coat,  the  red  trou- 
sers and  the  buff  boots.  The  equerry  (the  Duke  of 
Hamilton?)  is  rightly  subordinated  and  kept  down 
in  light,  but  he,  too,  is  well  drawn.  Even  the  horse 
has  come  in  for  better  portraiture  than  Van  Dyck 
usually  bestowed  on  his  chargers.  The  sky  and 
trees  should  also  be  noticed,  as  also  the  set-in  of 
the  figures,  and  the  atmospheric  envelope.  Aside 
from  its  technique,  what  a  noble  presence  he  has 
given  to  Charles.  He  is  undersized,  to  be  sure, 
but  every  inch  a  king,  standing  there  without  any 
of  the  trappings  of  a  throne,  dressed  as  a  gentleman 
merely,  and  yet  dignified,  restful,  monarch-like. 
Some  there  are  who  see  in  it  a  sadness  premoni- 
tory of  the  king's  fate,  and  others  there  be  who  see 
the  king  in  a  hunting  scene,  but  the  painter  prob- 
ably had  neither  thought  in  mind.  There  is  told 
a  tale  of  the  picture  being  cut  in  two  by  certain 
heirs  who  could  not  agree  that  either  should  have 
it  in  its  entirety.  The  line  of  the  cut  is  still  appar- 
ent. 

1973.  Portrait  of  a  Man  and  a  Child.  It  is  a  black- 
ish affair  with  considerable  pose  and  affectation 
about  both  man  and  child.  Look  at  the  hands 
with  their  little  oratorical  gesture,  or  the  turn  of  the 
heads.  The  child's  head  seems  the  better  of  the  two. 
But  neither  of  them  is  comparable  to  the  charac- 
ters in  No.  1974. 

1977.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  A  picture  of  some  dis- 
tinction without  being  a  masterpiece.  It  is  appar- 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  35 

ently  in  fairly  good  condition.  The  head  is  well 
drawn,  the  drapery  a  little  full,  the  whites  a  bit 
formal  in  their  arrangement.  But  it  is  a  good 
portrait. 

Portraits    of    the    Duke    of  Bavaria    and  His 

Brother.  Not  so  impressive  as  it  looks  at  first 
glance.  The  cleaning-room  processes  must  have 
damaged  it,  and  there  must  always  have  been  too 
much  armour  in  evidence.  The  figures  are  not  very 
well  placed  on  the  canvas,  but  there  is  some  haugh- 
tiness about  it,  some  aristocracy  of  face  and  hand, 
superficial  though  it  be. 

Portrait  of  Frangois  de  Moncade.      It  has  been 

too  badly  repainted  to  judge  of  its  merits  as  paint- 
ing at  the  present  time.  There  is  grandiloquence 
about  it,  and  it  is  one  of  Van  Dyck's  best  equestrian 
portraits,  but  it  falls  a  little  short  of  the  mark.  In 
his  late  style. 

The  Virgin  and  Donors.  A  good  subject  pic- 
ture, done  in  Van  Dyck's  best  manner,  with  a 
beautiful  type  for  the  Madonna,  and  some  charm 
in  the  Child.  The  portraits  of  the  Donors  are 
plain  and  without  pretence,  both  heads  being  strong 
and  well  done.  The  colour  is,  or  would  be,  very 
good,  were  it  not  darkened  by  the  painter's  per- 
sistent habit  of  painting  flesh  over  black  under- 
basing.  The  effect  of  this  shows  in  the  sooty  hands 
of  the  Madonna,  Child,  and  Donors,  and  in  the 
discoloured  blue  robe.  But  it  is  a  very  good  piece 
of  work.  The  influence  of  Titian  is  apparent  in  it. 
Somewhat  retouched  and  hurt  by  restorations. 

St.  Sebastian.    Not  so  bad  a  Van  Dyck  in 

either  form  or  colour  as  some  other  works  here 


36  THE  LOUVRE 

attributed  to  him.  He  was  not  a  success  in  these 
subjects,  and  evidently  cared  not  too  much  about 
them.  No.  1961  is  a  poor  affair,  and  the  myth- 
ological themes  (Nos.  1965  and  1966)  are  too  pretty, 
though  they  are  agreeable  in  colour. 

2364.  Eeckhout,  Gerbrandt  van  den.  Anne  Conse- 
crating Her  Son.  A  Rembrandtesque  picture  with 
dull  light  and  some  accent  of  small  high  lights  in 
the  robes  and  gold  of  the  chair.  Notice  the  hands, 
for  they  are  not  unlike  Rembrandt's  except  that 
they  are  a  little  finer  and  not  very  well  drawn. 
The  colour  is  good  and  the  figures  of  the  woman 
and  child  are  well  given.  Notice  also  that  the 
golden  robes  are  done  not  unlike  those  in  the  Rem- 
brandt, Woman  Bathing  (No.  2549),  opposite. 
The  standing  figure  of  the  Rabbi  in  a  turban  is, 
perhaps,  the  same  model  as  the  turbaned  figure 
in  the  Good  Samaritan  by  Rembrandt  across  the 
gallery  (No.  2357).  This  man's  work  should  be 
borne  in  mind  when  examining  the  pictures  put 
down  to  Rembrandt. 

1986.    Eyck,  Jan  van.     Madonna   with  the  Donor.     In 

spite  of  some  bombardment  from  modern  criticism, 
this  picture  is  still  attributed  to  Jan  van  Eyck,  and 
not  to  his  older  brother  Hubert.  And  for  the  very 
good  reason  that  no  one  knows  anything  posi- 
tively about  Hubert's  style,  but  they  do  know  some- 
thing about  Jan's  style.  Some  might  think  the 
picture  in  the  style  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden  or 
Christus,  but  it  comes  near  enough  to  Jan  van 
Eyck.  In  any  event,  it  is  a  famous  work  and  has 
always  been  considered  a  marvel  in  its  goldsmith- 
like  workmanship.  What  superb  characterisa- 
tion in  the  kneeling  donor,  supposed  to  be  Chan- 


FLEMISH  SCHOOL  37 

cellor  Rollin !  It  is  a  fine  portrait.  The  Madonna 
and  Child  are  quite  as  fine  in  their  way.  The 
colour  is  not  so  noticeable  as  the  detail,  in  which 
the  eye  can  wander  for  a  long  time,  finding  new 
beauties  at  every  turn.  Notice  the  crown,  the 
globe  held  by  the  Child,  the  edge  of  the  Madonna's 
robe,  the  architecture,  the  floor,  the  flowers.  Ex- 
amine them  carefully.  And  do  not  overlook  the 
town  (supposed  to  be  Lyons),  the  river,  and  the 
distant  landscape  so  serenely  beautiful.  Perhaps 
there  is  too  much  in  the  picture.  It  lacks  the  sim- 
plicity of,  say,  the  Arnolfini  portraits  in  the  National 
Gallery,  London  (No.  1186).  But  it  is  no  less  a 
marvel. 

1677A  j  Ferrarese  School.  St.  George  and  St.  Apotti- 
1677s  /  naris.  Two  small  figures,  beautiful  in  colour, 
standing  with  much  dignity  of  presence  in  archi- 
tectural niches.  In  the  present  (1913)  arrangement 
on  the  wall  they  are  difficult  to  see.  They  should 
be  on  a  screen  where  the  beauty  of  the  costumes 
and  the  depth  of  the  colour  could  be  seen. 

1285.  Ferrari,  Gaudenzio.  St.  Paul.  The  figure  is 
somewhat  heavy  and  encumbered  with  too  much 
beard  and  drapery.  The  protruding  hands  and 
feet  are  very  well  done,  and  the  landscape  is  un- 
usually good. 

2203.  Flemish  School  (15th  Century).  The  Dead 
Christ.  Strong  in  its  sentiment — even  tragic. 
The  figure  is  angular  and  stiff,  the  drawing  cramped, 
the  colour  excellent.  The  storm-clouds  in  the  sky 
are  suggestive.  The  work  shows  the  influence  of 
Van  der  Weyden  in  the  figures,  and  yet  reminds 
one  of  Metsys.  The  landscape  is  also  like  a  Metsys. 


38  THE  LOUVRE 

2204A.  Portrait  of  an  Old  Man.     A  fine  head  that 

speaks  for  itself  in  both  drawing  and  character. 
It  was  at  one  time  thought  more  German  than 
Flemish,  and  attributed  to  Holbein.  It  is  almost 
good  enough  for  Holbein,  though  not  by  him.  It 
is  now  thought  by  M.  Durand-Greville  to  be  by 
Juste  van  Cleve. 

2198.  Pastoral  Instruction.  It  has  good  colour  about 

it  and  some  excellent  architecture,  with  much  detail 
of  drawing.  Once  thought  to  be  a  Memling,  but  it 
has  no  Memling  look.  It  is  something  of  a  puzzle. 

2202.  The  Annunciation.  The  sentiment  is  pure, 

the  figures  simple,  the  colours  rich.  It  is  well  drawn 
and  painted.  And  with  considerable  certainty  of 
touch,  as  in  the  brasses,  the  jewels,  the  flowers. 
Through  the  window  a  charming  landscape  is  seen. 
At  one  time  attributed  to  Lucas  van  Leyden  and 
again  to  Memling.  It  is  a  difficult  picture  to  place 
with  any  positiveness,  but  it  is  probably  nearer  to 
the  Master  of  Flemalle  than  any  one  else.  See  the 
Madrid  picture,  No.  1514. 

2738B. Madonna  and  Child.    This  is  a  comparatively 

new  acquisition  and  unfortunately  sheds  less  light 
on  the  Flemish  School  than  on  modern  picture 
copying.  It  has  every  indication  of  being  of  very 
recent  origin.  Study  the  gold  dotting  on  the  ground, 
the  drawing,  the  smearing  of  the  face  to  create  the 
appearance  of  old  grime,  the  canvas.  They  tell 
their  own  story.  It  is  a  copy  of  some  miracle- 
working  Madonna  picture.  There  is  another  and 
perhaps  earlier  version  in  Buckingham  Palace. 

2372.    Flinck,  Govaert.    Annunciation  to  the  Shepherds. 

A  picture  which  the  student  of  Rembrandt  and  his 
school  would  do  well  to  study  for  certain  types 


FLORENTINE  SCHOOL  39 

(and  their  manner  of  drawing  and  painting)  that 
have  a  Rembrandtesque  look — those  of  the  shep- 
herds, for  instance,  as  well  as  the  angels  and 
putti.  Study  also  the  colour  and  lighting  and  the 
Rembrandtesque  hands.  This  picture  is  more  like 
Bol  or  Eeckhout  than  Flinck.  In  the  mix-up  of 
Rembrandt  and  his  pupils,  it  is  not  merely  that 
Rembrandt  is  confused  with  Bol,  but  that  Bol  is 
confused  with  Flinck,  Eeckout,  and  Fabritius,  and 
that  they  are  all  confused  with  one  another.  The 
artistic  personality  of  each  of  these  followers  has 
yet  to  be  established.  Therefore  it  is  at  present 
necessary  to  say  about  many  pictures  merely  that 
they  are  doubtful  Rembrandts  or  Bols  or  Flincks 
without  attempting  to  assign  them  arbitrarily  or 
finally  to  any  one. 

2373.  -  —Portrait  of  a  Young  Girl.  One  of  Flinck's 
most  graceful  performances.  It  has  charm  of  per- 
sonality in  the  sitter  and  is  painted  with  good  light, 
air,  and  colour.  The  handling  is  not  very  sure, 
but  the  student  may  see  in  the  chains  and  jewels 
how  Flinck  could  produce  something  that  might  pass 
for  Rembrandt's  handling  with  the  unobservant. 

1656.  Florentine  School.  Annunciation.  A  school  pic- 
ture of  some  interest  in  art  history.  The  angel 
and  the  Madonna  may  be  related  to  the  workshop 
of  Verrocchio  or  Cosimo  Rosselli.  The  picture 
shows  many  influences.  The  angel  and  the  lilies 
are  fairly  good. 

1663.  Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.  The  picture  is 

somewhat  curious  in  drawing  but  it  is  not  inferior 
in  spirit.  It  belongs  somewhere  near  the  work- 
shop of  Botticelli,  which  is  what  Mr.  Berenson 
means  when  he  attributes  it  to  Amico  di  Sandro. 


40  THE  LOUVRE 

The  drawing  of  the  nose  indicates  the  work  of  the 
man  who  is  now  known  under  that  name.  Com- 
pare it  with  No.  1300A,  near  at  hand. 

1643A. Esther  Crowned  by  Ahasuerus.      It  is  not  very 

well  drawn,  but  by  the  use  of  gold  and  colours  it 
has  been  made  a  panel  of  considerable  decorative 
beauty.  The  types,  the  colour,  and  the  gilding  sug- 
gest Jacopo  del  Sellajo,  who  is  just  now  the  recipient 
of  some  things  that  will  not  fit  Botticelli.  Yet 
Jacopo  is  a  painter  of  some  originality  and  imag- 
ination in  spite  of  modern  criticism.  Somewhat 
repainted. 

1661A.  -  — Madonna  and  Child.  A  little  formal  in  the 
oval  sweep  of  the  blue  drapery  and  a  little  stiff  in 
the  pose  of  the  Madonna  and  Child;  but  it  is  an 
interesting  picture  for  the  student  of  attributions. 
It  seems  a  common-enough  school  piece,  but  that 
should  only  add  to  the  interest  and  the  glory  of  the 
chase. 

1662.    History  of  Virginia.     A  picture  of  some  spirited 

action,  with  figures  in  bright  costumes  against  grey 
architecture  and  landscape.  It  has  the  look  of  a 
Jacopo  del  Sellajo.  Mr.  Berenson  thinks  it  by 
Amico  di  Sandro.  Probably  it  is  part  of  a  cassone 
front.  No  note  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  La 
Fenestre  catalogue. 

1274.   St.  John.     A  flattened  face  which  possesses 

much  of  the  spirit  and  beauty  that  made  Desi- 
derio's  reliefs  famous.  What  fine  feeling  it  has! 
Mr.  Berenson  thinks  it  by  Piero  di  Cosimo,  but  the 
quality  of  it,  the  sentiment  of  it  seem  too  fine  for 
Piero.  It  looks  as  though  done  from  a  marble. 
Notice  the  sharpness  of  the  profile. 


FRANCESCA,  PIERO  BELLA  41 

N.  N.  Madonna,   Child,  and  Four  Angels.      A  panel 

in  distemper  on  a  gesso  ground,  the  white  of  which 
shows  through  in  spots.  Not  too  well  drawn  and 
a  little  crude,  but  a  lovely  bit  of  sentiment,  as 
shown  in  all  the  faces — the  angels  in  particular. 
How  beautiful  the  gold  work  and  the  flowers  I 
Without  a  number  on  the  frame,  and  not  to  be 
found  in  the  La  Fenestre  catalogue. 

288.  Fouquet,  Jean.  Portrait  of  Cuillaume  Juvenal 
des  Ursins.  A  large  figure  in  a  red  dress  flattened 
against  a  gilded  architectural  background  of  much 
decorative  beauty.  The  face  is  powerful  and  the 
figure  large  in  bulk,  but  both  are  weakened  by  the 
prominence  of  the  ornate  background.  The  colour 
is  rich  in  the  books,  cushion,  and  costume. 

289. Portrait  of  Charles  VII.     In  the  same  vein  and 

probably  by  the  same  hand  that  painted  No.  288. 
This  portrait  is  better  sustained  because  of  the  less 
obtrusive  ground  at  the  back,  but  it  has  probably 
darkened  in  the  flesh  and  robe  like  No.  288.  Notice 
here,  as  a  contrast  to  No.  288,  the  marked  severity 
of  the  background.  These  two  portraits  are  fairly 
well  authenticated  as  Fouquets. 

1300B.  Francesca,  Piero  della.     Madonna  and  Child. 

Of  all  the  Madonnas  in  the  room  of  the  Italian 
Primitives,  this  is  the  most  remarkable,  the  most 
inspiring,  the  most  startling  in  its  beauty.  If  art 
is  a  point  of  view  and  genius  a  way  of  looking  at 
things,  then  here  is  certainly  the  unusual  view  and 
the  individual  vision.  The  picture  violates  almost 
all  preconceived  or  ordinary  conceptions  of  Ma- 
donnas, ideal  faces,  and  figures.  The  face  is  not 
pretty,  not  even  handsome;  the  figure  is  abnor- 
mally tall,  flat  in  the  bust,  heavy  in  the  waist,  some- 


42  THE  LOUVRE 

what  out  of  proportion  in  the  head  and  neck;  and 
the  Child  is  perhaps  too  small.  Yet  here  is  art  in 
the  very  oddness  of  the  angle  of  vision,  in  the  ab- 
normal quality  of  the  characterisation,  in  the  lack 
of  the  obvious  and  the  commonplace.  In  spite  of 
its  oddity,  how  lovely  the  type,  how  delicate  the 
roundness  of  the  contours,  how  charming  the  senti- 
ment! Moreover,  here  is  true  artistic  feeling — 
feeling  for  form  and  colour.  How  splendidly  the 
rather  awkward  figures  hold  their  place  in  the  pat- 
tern! What  a  sky  and  distance  and  feeling  for 
space!  What  wonderful  depth  and  unusual  quality 
of  colour  in  the  costume!  Cast  your  eyes  around 
the  room,  and  match  if  you  can  those  reds  and 
blues.  They  are  superb.  The  picture  is  like  a 
star  upon  the  wall.  How  it  draws  attention  away 
from  everything  else  near  it!  It  was  certainly 
never  painted  by  Piero  della  Francesca.  It  lacks 
his  firmness  of  drawing,  his  robustness  of  figure, 
his  strength  of  characterisation.  It  is  almost  as 
certainly  by  Baldovinetti.  Mr.  Berenson  has  quite 
conclusively  summed  up  the  evidence  for  it  in  his 
"  Study  and  Criticism  of  Italian  Art,"  vol.  II,  p.  23. 
On  the  frame  it  is  No.  1300,  and  is  sometimes  cata- 
logued under  the  School  of  Botticelli. 

1435.  Francia,    Francesco.    Nativity.    A    small    but 
lovely  little  picture  with  a  landscape  full  of  air 
and  space.     What  a  very  pretty  valley  with  distant 
mountains!     The  figures  are  as  beautiful  in  colour 
as  in  sentiment.     The  picture  is  cold  in  light  and 
rather  hard  in  the  drawing,  but  a  little   master- 
piece notwithstanding. 

1436.   Christ  on  the  Cross.     Somewhat  excessive  in 

its  sentiment  and  perhaps  overdone  in  its  tragic 


FRENCH  SCHOOL  43 

quality,  but  with  a  simple  arrangement  of  the 
figures,  a  finely  drawn  nude  on  the  ground,  and  a 
broad  landscape.  Like  many  of  Francia's  pictures, 
it  is  cold  in  the  sky,  where  one  sees  not  very 
realistic  clouds.  The  colour  is  rather  effective. 

1437.    Madonna  and  Child.     It  is  a  school  piece  for 

all  its  close  likeness  to  Francia.  The  hands  are 
faulty  in  drawing  and  there  is  a  glassy  quality 
to  the  surface.  The  landscape  is  Francia-like  but 
a  little  crude.  Compare  it  with  the  Francia  No. 
1435,  near  at  hand.  In  the  drawing  of  the  figures 
compare  it  again  with  No.  1436  by  Francia,  espe- 
cially in  the  drawing  of  the  hands. 

1004.  French  School  (Burgundian,   15th  Century). 
Pierre  II,  Duke  of  Bourbon,  with  St.  Peter.     Part 
of  a  triptych,  the  centre  of  which  is  lost.     A  work 
of  some  interest  in  the  history  of  art  because  rep- 
resenting the   early  French  School  which  is  now 
beginning  to  take  shadowy  form.     The  drawing 
seems  larger  than  in  the  contemporary  Netherlands 
work  and  the  colour  scheme  is  different.     Of  course 
there  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  types.     The  red 
of  the  costume  is  rich  but  the  green  and  purple 
lack  a  little  in  depth.     The  landscape  is  somewhat 
crude.     Mr.  Fry  thinks  this  and  its  companion 
piece  (No.  1005)  emanated  from  the  atelier  of  the 
Master  of  Moulins.     This  is  possible.     Compare 
the  donors  in  No.  1005  and  No.  1005A.     Notice 
that  the  painting  in  No.  1005A  is  fatter,  cleaner, 
surer  than  in  No.  1005. 

1005.    Portrait  of  Anne  of  France  with  the  Christ. 

A  companion  wing  to  No.  1004  with  probably  a 
portion  of  it  (at  the  right  side,  back  of  the  donor) 
cut  away.  Brighter  in  colour  than  No.  1004  and 


44  THE  LOUVRE 

with  the  same  kind  of  landscape.  The  same  hand 
probably  did  both  panels.  The  St.  John  suggests 
the  influence  of  Memling.  Repainted  a  little  in 
the  faces  and  hands. 

1003.  -  — Portrait  of  Philippe  le  Bon.  A  fine  portrait,  a 
*  perfect  portrait  of  its  kind.  Other  versions  of  it 
are  to  be  seen  in  the  Antwerp  Museum  (No.  538) 
and  at  Bruges  (No.  1).  It  is  primitive,  clean-cut, 
white-faced,  very  true  and  honest.  The  hands  are 
long  in  the  fingers,  with  but  little  light  and  shade 
and  much  outline  drawing.  A  beautiful  green 
ground.  What  good  spirit  it  has! 

1002.    Portrait    of   Jean    sans   Pear.     An    ill-drawn, 

angular  work  with  a  sharp  profile  and  mannered 
hands,  but  of  unique  quality  as  portraiture.  It  is 
not  more  sane  than  work  done  in  a  similar  vein 
by  II  Greco,  but  is  just  as  interesting.  Some 
features  about  it  look  very  modern.  Another  ver- 
sion at  Brussels  is  put  down  to  a  Van  Eyck  contem- 
porary (No.  540),  and  the  same  type  appears  in 
the  Sforza  altar-piece  (No.  515),  left  wing,  at 
Brussels. 

1000.    Portrait  of  a  Man  with  a  Glass  of  Wine.     The 

drawing  is  large,  if  somewhat  crude  and  lacking  in 
skill,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  hands,  eyes,  nose, 
mouth.  The  costume  is  simple  in  flat  blacks. 
Notice  the  very  good  glass  of  wine.  A  true  and 
honest  piece  of  work  with  much  character  about  it. 
See  an  article  regarding  it  in  the  Revue  Arche"olo- 
gique,  September,  1910,  p.  236. 

998.    Deposition.     This  picture  is  somewhat  similar 

in  method  to  the  Retable  du  Parlement  de  Paris, 
mentioned  hereinafter.  It  is  not  by  the  same  mas- 


FRENCH  SCHOOL  45 

ter,  but  of  the  same  school.  It  is  a  poorer  picture 
without  being  poor  in  itself.  Notice  the  ill-drawn 
heads,  feet,  and  hands,  the  bright  robes;  but  also 
notice  that  the  picture  has  sincerity.  Once  put  down 
to  the  School  of  Van  Eyck. 

N.  N. St.  Helena  and  the  Miracle  of  the  Holy  Cross. 

A  picture  possibly  inspired  by  Bouts  or  some  one 
of  his  school,  but  given  with  French  types  in  the 
kneeling  figures.  The  drawing  is  large  though 
minute  in  patterns  and  jewels.  An  excellent  piece 
of  colour  with  much  variety  and  yet  unity.  Notice 
the  head  coverings.  And  the  charming  little  figure 
rising  from  the  dead.  The  picture  is  not  positively 
of  French  extraction. 

N.  N.  French  School  (15th  Century).  Portrait  of  a 
Child  in  Prayer.  Very  simply  done,  like  all  this 
early  French  work,  but  rather  effective  in  its  line- 
drawing.  Notice  here  the  hands,  the  outline  of 
the  head  and  face,  the  beauty  of  the  whites.  It  is 
not  clever  but  it  is  honest. 

N.  N.  French  School  (about  1475).  Retable  du  Parle- 
*  mentde  Paris:  Calvary.  The  history  of  the  early 
French  School  is  still  vague.  The  painters  and 
their  pictures  are  by  no  means  accurately  known 
or  attributed.  Here  is  a  picture  of  French  extrac- 
tion that  might  be  used  as  a  criterion  of  one  style 
at  least.  It  is  of  marked  technical  excellence. 
Notice  the  unusual  types  of  heads  and  hands,  the 
peculiar  break  of  the  draperies  at  the  arms  and 
shoulders  instead  of  at  the  bottom,  the  odd  type 
of  figure  in  the  Christ,  the  singular  landscape,  the 
unique  colours.  It  is  well  done  in  the  robes  of 
Charlemagne  or  St.  Louis  as  in  the  grotesque  types 
back  of  St.  Denis,  who  is  holding  his  head  in  his 


46  THE  LOUVRE 

hands.  How  fine  the  work  is  in  its  feeling,  its  spirit! 
Thought  by  some  to  be  of  Netherlandish  origin. 
The  John  the  Baptist  has  a  slight  suggestion  of 
Memling,  and  John  the  Evangelist  is  a  little  in  the 
vein  of  Van  der  Weyden. 

1012.  French  School  (16th  Century).  Portrait  of 
*  Baron  Montmorency.  The  face  and  hands  are 
stained  and  injured,  but  the  beauty  of  the  drawing 
is  still  apparent.  The  modelling  of  the  eyes  and 
brows,  the  doing  of  the  skull  and  cheek-bones  are 
noteworthy.  A  fine  head  with  rich  colour  in  the 
robes.  It  has  character,  force,  power. 

1015.    Portrait  of  the  Dae  de  Guise.     A  portrait  of 

the  Clouet  School,  or  possibly  an  old  copy.  The 
work  is  detailed  but  not  niggled,  as  one  may  see  in 
the  costume,  the  hat,  and  the  painting  of  the  beard. 
These  features  are  not,  however,  very  well  done. 
Nos.  1017,  1025,  1028,  1030  are  of  a  quality  similar 
to  this  picture. 

683.  Equestrian  Portrait  of  Francis  I.  A  repeti- 
tion of  a  work  in  the  Uffizi  Gallery  at  Florence  (No. 
667),  attributed  there  to  Fran£ois  Clouet.  Done 
with  much  precision  and  beauty  of  colour.  The 
horse  is  excellent.  As  for  the  likeness  of  Francis, 
it  may  prove  interesting  to  compare  it  with  No. 
1007,  hanging  near  at  hand. 

1028.    Portrait  of  Chrestien  de  Savigny.     Very  much 

in  the  style  of  No.  1015,  and  doubtless  they  both 
came  from  the  same  studio.  This  seems  to  be  the 
better  of  the  two.  Both  have  dignity  and  char- 
acter. 

1017.    -    —  Portrait  of  Michel  de  I'Hopital.     Very  smooth 
in  its  execution  and  with  the  look  of  a  copy — only 


FRENCH  SCHOOL  47 

one  does  not  know  the  original.  It  is  in  the  French 
miniature  style,  but  enlarged  and  elaborated. 

N.  N.  Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  knee-piece  of  a  man 

in  red  doublet  and  white  coat,  with  hand  on  sword. 
The  hand  is  abnormally  large,  but  how  well  his  head 
is  drawn,  especially  the  brow  and  hair!  There  is 
much  sturdiness  about  the  figure.  The  picture 
is  stained. 

1007.   Portrait  of  Francis  I.     The  figure  is  flat  and 

sacrificed  to  the  ornamented  coat  from  which  the 
hands  seem  to  protrude  with  some  violence.  The 
face  is  rather  foolish  in  its  look,  but  well  drawn. 
The  neck  has  been  cleaned  too  much,  as  has  also 
the  coat.  The  costume  is  ornate  in  pearls  and 
gold  thread.  Once  attributed  to  Holbein. 

1024.    Portrait  of  Diana  of  France.     A  smooth-faced, 

porcelain-like  portrait,  very  prim  and  precise  in 
its  drawing  of  costume,  but  with  a  little  broader 
use  of  the  brush  in  the  forehead  and  hair.  No. 
1027  is  probably  by  the  same  hand. 

1011  A. Portrait     of     Marquise    d'Elbozuf.      It  has    a 

look  about  it  suggestive  of  the  Flemish  School  of 
Gossart,  but  this  may  be  no  more  than  a  superficial 
resemblance  in  colour.  A  smooth  affair,  but  hand- 
somely made. 

1036.  —Henry  III  at  the  Foot  of  the  Cross.  A  very 
*  beautiful  little  picture  full  of  the  true  spirit  of  art. 
The  kneeling  figure  in  his  fine  robes  is  excellent 
and  the  dark  landscape  makes  a  proper  background 
for  the  cross.  The  figure  on  the  cross  is  not  that 
of  a  Diirer,  but  it  is  sufficiently  well  drawn.  The 
same  painter  did  portraits  of  the  Due  d'Ale^on 
and  Charles  IX  at  Chantilly  (Musee  Conde). 


48  THE  LOUVRE 

1013.    French  School  of  Fontainebleau.    Diana.    A 

full-length  figure  of  the  goddess  with  the  bow. 
Very  graceful  in  outline  and  very  effective  as  white 
on  a  dark  landscape  background.  It  has  been 
much  cleaned,  which  may  account  for  some  of  the 
figure's  whiteness.  It  shows  the  Italian  influence 
of,  say,  Primaticcio? 

1014A.  -  —Venus  at  Her  Toilet.  Very  graceful  figures 
in  a  pyramidal  composition.  Suggestive  of  the 
School  of  Primaticcio.  The  surface  has  been  too 
much  cleaned,  yet  the  picture  is  still  fine  in  colour. 

304A.  Froment  d'Avignon.  King  Rene  d'Anjou  and 
His  Queen.  These  are  strong,  fine  heads  of  almost 
Holbein  character  in  their  sincerity  and  truth. 
What  a  head  and  face  that  of  King  Rene!  And 
what  hands !  As  a  statement  of  fact,  it  is  excellent, 
although  the  work  is  neither  very  learned  nor  very 
subtle.  The  drawing  is,  in  fact,  rather  crude,  but 
very  sincere. 

1301.  Gaddi,  Agnolo.     Annunciation.     In  the  style  of 
the  Gaddi,  with  Giotto's  figures  somewhat  refined 
and  perhaps  prettified,  but  still  with  good  senti- 
ment.    The  work  was  carried  as  far  as  the  painter 
was  competent  to  carry  it  at  that  time,  and  in  that 
sense  it  is  complete  art  without  being  complete  in 
a  modern  sense.     The  gold  work,  the  patterns,  and 
colour  are  all  excellent.     How  graceful  the  two 
angels  for  all  their  heavy  figures — two  angels  in- 
stead of  one! 

1302.  Gaddi,   Taddeo.     A   Predella.    Three  panels  of 
good   action   and   harmonious  colour,   with  some 
richness  of  effect  in  the  gold  work.     Some  of  the 
draperies  are  well  handled.    The  figures  are  sack- 


GEERTGEN  TOT  SINT  JANS  49 

like  and  Giottesque,  but  well  put  together,  and  the 
broken  tones  of  colour  are  remarkable.  Attribu- 
tions of  such  panels  as  these  are  largely  guesses. 

Garbo,  Raffaellino  del.  Coronation  of  the  Vir- 
gin. A  pleasing  type  of  the  Madonna  with  music- 
making  angels  about  her  in  a  circle.  Four  robust 
saints  in  handsome  robes  below,  making  a  square 
that  balances  and  offsets  the  upper  circle.  A  more 
restful  picture  than  Raffaellino  usually  produced, 
though  it  is  not  inspired.  It  looks  as  though  two 
hands  had  worked  upon  it  originally,  one  below 
and  one  above,  to  say  nothing  of  the  restorer's 
hands  that  have  tortured  it  since.  Possibly  Raf- 
faellino's  hand  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  is 
injured  at  the  top. 

Garofalo  (Benvenuto  Tisi).     The  Sleep  of  Jesus. 

The  Child  is  heavy  and  ill  drawn  in  the  head,  and 
the  Madonna  somewhat  affected,  as  in  the  hands. 
The  colour  is  fair,  but  the  picture  is  not  a  good 
Garofalo. 

Geertgen  tot  Sint  Jans  (Gerard  of  Haarlem). 

Resurrection  of  Lazarus.  A  work  of  much  strength 
and  beauty.  The  draperies  are  given  with  great 
breadth  for  such  early  art,  and  even  the  figures  are 
not  sharply  accented  in  drawing — not  even  in  the 
hands.  The  heads  are  fine,  but  they  have  none  of 
the  Van  Eyck  minuteness  about  them,  and  the 
jewels  are  not  finical  or  overdone  in  any  way. 
The  foreground  is  a  wealth  of  colour  and  the  back- 
ground is  a  simple  landscape  of  much  truth  in 
tree  forms,  mountains,  sky.  The  composition  is  a 
simple,  balanced  grouping  about  the  figure  of  Laz- 
arus, and  the  colour  scheme  a  series  of  repeated 
notes  of  red,  green,  blue,  white,  black.  It  suggests 


50  THE  LOUVRE 

the  influence  of  Ouwater.  There  is  no  great  cer- 
tainty about  the  attribution,  for  Geertgen  is  only 
a  spectre  in  art  history,  but  the  picture  agrees  with 
other  pictures  attributed  to  him  at  Vienna,  Ber- 
lin, and  Amsterdam.  We  may  be  reasonably  cer- 
tain that  it  is  a  fine  picture,  whoever  painted  it. 
Somewhat  restored. 

1279.  Gentile  da  Fabriano.  Virgin  and  Child  with 
Donor.  The  picture  is  by  some  follower  or  pupil 
of  Gentile — probably  Jacopo  Bellini — and  certainly 
shows  Gentile  da  Fabriano's  influence.  The  Ma- 
donna (Jacopo  Bellini's  type)  is  attractive  in  her 
rich  robe  and  odd  halo.  The  kneeling  donor  has 
a  head  that  might  go  on  a  coin  by  Vittore  Pisano 
(who  influenced  Jacopo),  and  a  robe  fit  for  an  angel. 
But  the  most  interesting  part  of  the  picture  lies 
in  the  background,  with  its  cities,  hills,  .and  sky 
lighted  from  above.  It  is  one  of  the  earliest  at- 
tempts at  light  from  the  sky  (as  reflected  from  the 
earth),  and  should  be  compared  with  the  Flight 
into  Egypt  in  the  predella  of  Gentile's  great  altar- 
piece  in  the  Florence  Academy  (No.  165).  It 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Gentile  went  in  the 
1420s  to  Venice  and  became  there  the  master  of 
Jacopo  Bellini,  the  father  of  Gentile  Bellini,  who 
with  Carpaccio  painted  such  astonishing  views  of 
Venice  wherein  the  light  came  from  the  sky.  The 
influence  of  Gentile  da  Fabriano  on  Venetian  land- 
scape can  be  traced  directly.  It  shows  in  this 
picture  at  the  starting-point.  What  beautiful  col- 
our in  the  robes,  the  landscape,  the  gold  work! 

1278.  -  — Presentation  in  the  Temple.  This  is  interest- 
ing because  it  is  one  of  the  predella  panels  belong- 
ing to  Gentile's  altar-piece  in  the  Florence  Academy 


GHIRLANDAJO  51 

(No.  165).  It  is  now  much  repainted  but  still  shows 
good  colour  and  composition.  Notice  the  feeling  for 
light,  shadow,  and  air. 

2745.  German  School  (16th  Century).  Judgment  of 
Paris.  It  is  not  a  very  early  picture.  The  draw- 
ing of  the  three  nudes  suggests  some  slight  Italian 
influence.  A  strong  little  picture,  not  only  in  the 
types  but  in  the  drawing  of  the  women.  Notice 
the  sarcasm  of  the  Mars  asleep.  Also  his  and  his 
companion's  fine  colour. 

2745A.  The  Flagellation  of  Christ.     A  brutal  theme 

*  given  with  perhaps  unnecessary  brutality.  The 
drawing  and  the  proportions  are  grotesque,  but  they 
are  atoned  for  in  a  measure  by  the  virile  richness 
and  beauty  of  the  colouring.  What  splendid  blues, 
reds,  greens,  yellows!  They  are  almost  up  to  those 
of  Thierri  Bouts.  The  figures  are  repellent  and 
the  facial  expressions  are  almost  grimace,  but  in 
spite  of  all  this  there  is  large  feeling  for  form. 
The  drawing,  though  abnormal,  is  powerful. 

2740.   The  Emperor  Maximilian.    There  are  several 

repetitions  of  this  figure  in  the  German  and  Aus- 
trian galleries.  It  is  positive  in  its  drawing  and 
quite  fine  in  colour.  With  a  very  picturesque  little 
landscape  at  the  right. 

1321.    Ghirlandajo,    Domenico.     The    Visitation.    A 

large,  formally  composed,  and  well-drawn  Ghir- 
landajo, but  of  rather  prosaic  spirit.  The  figure 
at  the  left  is  statuesque  and  academic;  the  one  at 
the  right  has  movement,  earnestness,  and  some 
feeling.  The  robes  are  hard,  the  colour  crude  and 
wanting  in  depth,  the  architecture  empty  and  quite 
unbelievable.  Perhaps  the  sky  and  distant  city 


52  THE  LOUVRE 

are  the  most  attractive  features  of  the  picture, 
notwithstanding  the  excellent  drawing  of  the  fig- 
ures. It  is  school  work. 

1322.    Portrait    of   an    Old   Man   and  a   Boy.     Very 

brilliant  in  its  red,  but  noticeable  more  for  its 
uncompromising  realism  than  anything  else.  The 
painter  has  not  glozed  over  the  ugliness  of  the  nose, 
or  prettified  the  huge  head,  nor  has  he  failed  to 
give  the  comeliness  of  the  boy.  He  has  told  the 
truth  with  forceful  drawing  and  rather  harsh 
painting.  But  he  had  a  sense  of  beauty  about 
landscape  as  you  may  see  in  the  view  at  the  back 
of  the  picture.  For  the  rest,  he  believed  that  truth, 
honestly  told,  is  always  beautiful.  And  so  it  is — 
that  is,  in  the  right  hands.  The  picture  is  in- 
jured in  the  forehead  of  the  man  and  too  much 
cleaned  in  both  faces. 

2711A.  Giltlinger,     Gumpold.     Adoration    of    Magi. 

With  strong  heads,  fine  robes  and  jewels,  odd  archi- 
tecture, and  a  deep  blue  sky.  The  horsemen  at 
the  back,  the  castle,  and  the  angels  up  above  are 
noteworthy.  A  picture  that  seems  strange  here 
in  the  Louvre,  but  one  that  is  to  be  admired 
wherever  seen.  The  painter  to  whom  it  is  assigned 
is  comparatively  unknown.  He  worked  at  Augs- 
burg. 

1136.    Giorgione  (Giorgio  Barbarelli).     A  Rustic  Con- 

**  cert.  A  world-famous  picture,  much  admired  for 
its  colour,  its  round  figures,  its  landscape,  and  its 
idyllic  spirit.  It  is  put  down  to  Giorgione  with 
great  certainty  by  some  and  denied  with  equal 
positiveness  by  others.  It  is  apparently  contra- 
dictory of  other  accepted  pictures  by  Giorgione. 
If  we  accept  the  Dresden  Sleeping  Venus  as  his 


GIORGIONE  53 

type  of  the  nude,  with  its  white  skin,  refined  lines, 
and  delicate  modelling,  how  are  we  to  reconcile  it 
with  these  carelessly  drawn,  brown-skinned,  sun- 
tanned, fleshy  figures  that  have  little  delicacy  or 
refinement  about  them?  If  the  serene,  well-bal- 
anced landscape  in  the  Castelfranco  Madonna  is 
his  type  of  landscape,  how  again  shall  we  recon- 
cile it  with  this  rather  scattered  scene,  which  seems 
more  like  a  Palma  or  Catena  background  than  any- 
thing we  know  in  Giorgione?  The  plume-like  foli- 
age drooping  out  at  the  left  above  the  standing 
figure  is  substantially  the  same  as  in  the  Catena 
Warrior  adoring  the  Infant  Christ  (No.  234),  in 
the  National  Gallery,  London,  and  also  in  a  loaned 
Holy  Family,  hanging  there  in  1912,  attributed  to 
Palma,  but  really  by  Catena.  Catena  followed 
Palma  in  landscape,  and  there  is  a  Palmesque  look 
about  this  Giorgione  landscape.  The  triangle  of 
sunlit  landscape  let  in  at  the  right  is  Palmesque, 
sheep  and  all,  but  it  does  not  agree  with  the  rest 
of  the  landscape,  which  is  more  like  Catena.  It 
looks  as  though  Catena  had  appropriated  that  sun- 
lit bit  from  some  one  like  Palma  and  dovetailed 
it  into  this  picture. 

That,  however,  which  is  the  most  puzzling  in 
this  Rustic  Concert  is  the  fulness  of  the  nude 
figures  and  a  certain  thinness  in  the  seated  fig- 
ures, the  latter  being  hardly  Giorgionesque  at  all. 
The  man  seated  at  the  right  stirs  memories  of 
Catena  again,  as  do  the  nudes.  Those  full  figures 
of  the  women  we  think  to  have  seen  in  Catena's 
work,  but  here  they  are  more  brown-skinned  and 
perhaps  stained  with  oil  or  varnish.  Again  we  fancy 
we  have  seen  them  in  Palma's  work.  Which  painter 
did  them?  Is  it  Catena  following  Palma  or  Palma 


54  THE  LOUVRE 

himself?  In  other  words,  this  picture  does  not 
speak  strongly  for  Giorgione,  as  we  know  him,  and 
is  more  like  the  work  of  his  imitators.  It  may 
be  by  Palma  or  the  masterwork  of  some  inferior 
artist  like  Catena,  in  which  he  has  done  something 
so  very  good  that  we  fail  to  recognise  it  as  by  him. 
It  frequently  happens  in  art  history  that  a  man's 
best  things  are  given  to  his  superiors  while  he  is 
permitted  to  retain  his  worst. 

It  is  a  masterpiece,  nevertheless,  and  in  pastoral 
charm  is  quite  worthy  of  Giorgione.  What  a 
superb  back  and  turn  of  the  head  the  seated  nude 
figure  shows  us!  In  colour  the  central  red  is  the 
key-note,  and  the  blue  landscape  and  sky  moderate 
it.  The  white  draperies  are  kept  down  in  light  to 
support  the  flesh  notes.  It  is  worth  while  going 
to  the  Moreau  Collection,  in  another  wing  of  the 
Louvre,  to  see  how  Manet  took  this  theme  for  his 
Dejeuner  sur  1'herbe  there  shown.  How  he  brutal- 
ised  it,  squeezed  all  of  the  poetic  and  idyllic  out  of 
it,  is  there  apparent.  However,  he  atoned  in  mea- 
sure by  some  excellent  painting. 

The  Rustic  Concert  is  a  work  to  be  studied,  not 
as  the  work  of  a  first-class  master,  but  as  the  work 
of  a  Palma  or  the  masterpiece  of  some  Catena 
of  the  brush.  It  has  been  repainted  in  spots,  no- 
ticeably the  hands,  which  were  never  too  well 
drawn.  See  the  note  on  the  Staedel  Institute 
Palma  (No.  668).  Morelli  some  years  ago  pub- 
lished a  drawing  by  Campagnola,  in  the  Malcolm 
Collection,  which  shows  the  seated  nude  figure  in 
this  Concert. 

1135.  -  —  The  Holy  Family  with  St.  Sebastian.  The 
figures  in  the  foreground  are  flattened  and  hardly 
belong  to  the  landscape.  Nor  is  the  proportion 


GOSSART,  JAN  55 

of  the  donor  to  the  saints  well  maintained.  The 
types,  colouring,  shadows,  and  flesh  are  pseudo- 
Giorgionesque  or  perhaps  Palmesque.  Crowe  and 
Cavalcaselle  put  it  down  to  Pellegrino  da  San 
Daniele  and  Berenson  to  Cariani.  The  sky  and 
hills  have  some  strength  of  colour  and  handling. 
Not  a  wonderful  picture,  whoever  did  it. 

1312.  Giotto  di  Bondone.  St.  Francis  Receiving  the 
Stigmata.  A  large  picture,  but  not  distinctively 
of  Giotto's  quality.  It  does  not  show  the  great 
painter  of  the  Arena  Chapel  frescoes.  Possibly  it 
is  much  changed  in  the  flesh  notes  as  well  as  in  the 
landscape  and  the  gold  ground.  The  figures  be- 
low are  even  less  like  Giotto  than  the  St.  Francis. 
The  whole  work  probably  belongs  to  Giotto's 
school.  See  also  Nos.  1314  to  1316,  inclusive,  for 
work  belonging  somewhere  near  Giotto. 

1318.    Girolamo  dai  Libri.     Madonna  and  Child.     A 

little  insipid  in  the  face  of  the  Madonna,  as  also 
in  the  cherubs.  It  is  by  some  pupil  or  follower. 
There  is  the  heavy  eyelid  of  Caroto,  but  otherwise 
it  is  not  like  his  work.  The  colour  is  not  bad. 
The  picture  has  been  overcleaned. 

1999.  Gossart,  Jan  (Mabuse).  Portrait  of  a  Benedic- 
tine. It  has  been  too  much  cleaned,  but  still  shows 
good  drawing  in  the  face  and  hands.  The  attribu- 
tion is  probably  correct. 

1997  1  Madonna  and  Child  with  Donor.     A  diptych 

1998  /  quite  in  Gossart's  style,  but  unfortunately  almost 

colourless  from  too  much  cleaning.  The  donor's 
portrait  is  simple,  true,  and  excellent,  with  strongly 
modelled  cheek-bones  and  well-articulated  hands. 
The  Child's  and  the  Madonna's  hands  are  less  well 
drawn. 


56  THE  LOUVRE 

2377.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  River  in  Holland.  A  grey  pic- 
ture of  some  merit,  but  rather  muddy  in  colour, 
not  only  in  the  buildings,  but  in  the  sky — a  muddi- 
ness  often  seen  in  Van  Goyen's  pupil,  Salomon  van 
Ruisdael.  No.  2375  is  of  the  same  opaque  quality, 
while  No.  2378  is  darker  in  key. 

N.  N.  Greco,  II  (Domenico  Theotocopuli).  Christ 
on  the  Cross.  A  somewhat  colourless  picture 
with  a  little  more  II  Greco  eccentricity  in  the 
background  than  usual.  The  clouds  look  like  a 
snowy  mountain  landscape.  The  portraits  below 
are  very  good.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  not  wanting 
in  pathos,  in  intensity  of  feeling,  in  some  grace  of 
form;  but  it  is  not  convincing  in  its  truth  to  reality. 
The  whites  are  silvery-grey,  the  blacks  of  the  clouds 
are  smoky.  The  picture  has  an  agreeable  surface. 

N.  N. Portrait    of    King    Ferdinand.     A    mannered 

performance,  of  course,  but  with  some  style  about 
it.  It  shows  the  rather  eccentric  individuality  of 
the  painter,  but  is  attractive  in  spite  of  grotesque- 
ness.  The  drawing  is  not  justifiable,  and  the  flesh 
is  blackish.  The  colour  is  attractive,  but  not  so 
variegated  as  is  usually  shown  in  his  figure  compo- 
sitions. A  strange  personality  in  the  king,  whose 
features  recall  those  of  the  present  king  of  Spain. 

1328.  Guardi,  Francesco.  The  Doge  Going  Aboard 
the  Bucentaur.  A  spotty  picture,  but  with  a  good 
effect  of  colour  and  light.  The  drawing  is  careless. 

1333.  College  Hall  in  the  Ducal  Palace.  A  fine  in- 
terior with  good  light,  air,  and  splendour  of  effect. 
Notice  the  sketchy  painting  of  the  pictures  of  Tin- 
toretto and  Veronese  upon  the  wall  and  ceiling. 
A  very  handsome  Guardi  for  all  the  repetition  of 
the  figures  of  senators  at  the  back. 


HALS,  FRANS  57 

1332.    Procession  of  the  Doge  to  San  Zaccaria.     The 

procession  is  extremely  well  given,  not  only  in  col- 
our and  light,  but  in  movement  from  left  to  right. 
How  well  the  mass  of  the  building  cuts  the  sky, 
especially  in  the  campanile  at  the  right!  And 
what  a  very  good  Venetian  sky!  See  it  repeated 
in  No.  1329,  where  the  building  of  the  Salute  is 
frail  and  not  well  done. 

1334. Coronation  of  the  Doge.     Excellent  for  the 

light  and  shade  of  it  (though  both  of  them  are 
dark  in  key),  for  the  massing  of  the  crowd,  and  for 
the  colour.  The  regularity  of  the  lines  of  the  palace 
is  a  little  trying. 

2389.  Hals,  Dirck.  Rustic  Feast.  There  is  much  spot- 
ting of  the  surface  with  small  high  lights  and  some 
effort  at  facile  handling  of  a  staccato  kind.  The 
colouring  is  better  than  the  spirit — the  latter  being 
too  conscious.  All  the  characters  seem  posing  for 
their  pictures.  The  two  central  figures,  with  varia- 
tions, appear  in  a  canvas  in  the  Altman  Collection, 
New  York,  there  ascribed  to  Frans  Hals.  The 
ruffs  here  might  be  compared  with  those  in  the 
Van  Berensteyn  portraits  by  Frans  Hals,  Nos. 
2386  and  2387. 

2384.  Hals,  Frans.  The  Gipsy.  A  picture  of  much 
vivacity  and  spirit.  The  superabundant  life  and 
animal  spirits  of  it  are  fascinating.  How  firmly  the 
face  is  modelled,  and  what  freedom  in  the  handling! 
It  is  little  more  than  a  sketch,  but  what  a  revela- 
tion it  is  of  the  man  behind  the  brush  as  well  as 
the  model !  Notwithstanding  its  excellence  it  is  not 
too  certainly  by  Hals.  His  son,  Frans,  did  just  as 
good  work  as  this. 


58  THE  LOUVRE 

2383. Portrait  of  Rene  Descartes.      A  sober  and  seri- 

ous  portrait  without  bluster  or  bravura,  giving  the 
truth  in  the  large,  broad  way  that  the  painter  saw 
it.  There  is  nothing  about  it  that  startles,  but  a 
great  deal  that  commands  respect. 

2385.  -  —Portrait  of  a  Woman.  It  is  not  unlike  No. 
2383  in  being  quiet  and  dignified.  There  is  no 
display  of  handling — in  fact,  the  face  and  head  look 
a  little  mealy,  as  though  done  with  difficulty.  The 
whites  have  probably  been  retouched. 

2386  \  Portraits     of     Nicolas    van     Berensteyn     and 

2387  /  Wife.     The    man's    portrait    is    better    than    the 
*        woman's.     The  head  and  hands  of  the  man  are 

excellent — the  hands  quite  in  the  style  of  Frans 
Hals,  and  the  head  not  only  fine  in  modelling,  but 
marked  by  a  noble  seriousness,  even  sadness.  But 
the  ruff,  and  cuff,  and  costume,  the  hair  and  the 
flesh  of  the  face  point  rather  to  some  one  like 
Dirck  Hals  than  to  Frans  Hals.  They  seem  too 
petty,  too  fussy  for  the  bigger  brother.  This  is 
equally  true  of  the  woman's  portrait,  with  its  lace 
work  and  good  pattern  in  the  dress.  It  is  possible 
that  Hals  was  largely  helped  in  this  picture  by 
Dirck.  The  third  picture  of  the  series,  No.  2388, 
confirms  such  a  theory,  for  it  is  even  less  typical  of 
Frans  Hals  than  the  two  just  considered.  Both  of 
these  portraits  have  been  much  restored,  which 
may  account  for  their  smoothness  of  costume. 

2388.  -  —  The  Van  Berensteyn  Family.  This  picture 
has  been  badly  restored,  and  the  little  girl  at  the 
right  was,  of  course,  an  afterthought — something 
added  to  the  canvas  by  an  alien  hand.  Aside  from 
its  hands  and  faces,  the  canvas  does  not  show 
Frans  Hals  in  any  way.  At  no  time  in  his  career 


HEMESSEN,  JAN  VAN  59 

did  he  do  such  small  and  finical  work  as  is  here 
shown  in  the  ruffs,  laces,  chains,  jewellery,  flowers, 
leaves,  grasses.  It  is  useless  to  suggest  that  this 
is  the  early  style  of  Hals.  The  picture  does  not 
show  the  early  style  of  any  one,  but  rather  the 
mature  style  of  a  small  and  careful  painter  such 
as  Dirck  Hals.  It  is  not  a  bad  picture  by  any 
means,  but  it  must  have  been  worked  upon  largely 
by  Hals's  pupils  or  helpers,  of  whom  Dirck  was 
one.  The  hands  and  hair  are  pretty,  and  even  the 
spirit  of  it  seems  much  too  "elegant"  for  Frans 
Hals.  If  we  accept  the  catalogue  date  of  1620, 
Hals  was  thirty-six  years  of  age  when  this  picture 
was  painted,  and  four  years  before  he  had  done 
the  picture  No.  123  at  Haarlem,  which  is  much 
broader  and  quite  different  from  this  in  handling. 
It  is  not  in  the  style  of  Hals,  and  is  probably  a 
workshop  picture — that  is,  he  planned  it,  and  Dirck 
and  others  executed  it.  The  same  hand  or  hands 
probably  did  the  Laughing  Cavalier  in  the  Wallace 
Collection,  the  Man  with  a  Sword  in  the  Lichten- 
stein  Gallery,  Vienna,  the  Nurse  and  Child  at 
Berlin. 

2397.  Heist,  Bartholomaeus  van  der.  Portraits  of  a 
Man  and  Woman.  They  are  done  in  Van  der 
Heist's  thinner,  smoother  manner,  but  not  without 
good  drawing  in  the  heads  and  hands.  How  well 
the  man's  sash,  the  woman's  satin  dress  are  ren- 
dered I  A  Dutch  town  is  shown  at  the  back. 

2001.    Hemessen,    Jan   van.     Tobit  and  His   Father. 

With  considerable  force  in  the  drawing  and  some 
darkness  in  the  colouring.  The  figure  at  the  left 
is  Heemskerck's  (not  Hemessen's)  model.  The 
same  figure  is  seen  in  the  Heemskerck  at  Haarlem 


60  THE  LOUVRE 

(No.  151)  and  again  at  Brussels  (No.  211).  One 
may  draw  his  own  conclusions  not  only  from  the 
model,  but  the  workmanship. 

1706.  Herrera,  Francisco  de.  St.  Basil  Dictating  His 
Doctrine.  Without  other  examples  of  Herrera  at 
hand,  this  picture  gives  a  distorted  idea  of  the 
painter.  He  was  not  quite  such  a  black,  brutal 
painter  as  is  here  indicated.  The  picture  is  not 
representative,  nor  is  it  pleasing.  * 

2401.  Heyden,  Jan  van  der.    A   Village  in  Holland. 
An  interesting  townscape  with  good  sky,  water, 
and  air.     The  delightful  little  figures  are  said  to 
be  painted  by  Adriaen  van  de  Velde,  and  the  boats 
by  his  brother,  Willem  van  de  Velde.     It  is  doubt- 
ful, however,  if  three  hands  working  on  the  picture 
could  have  kept  it  together  so  well. 

2402.  -    — Landscape.     Quite   a   charming   bit   of    sky, 
trees,  and  foreground,  whoever  did  it.    A  good  little 
picture  to  live  with. 

2404A.  Hobbema,  Meindert.  Landscape.  A  fine  ex- 
ample of  Hobbema's  conventional  landscape,  with 
his  grey  sky,  his  ground  lighted  in  spots,  and  his 
trees  with  their  formal  foliage.  It  is  his  convention 
at  its  best. 

2404.  -  —Water  Mill.  Less  conventional  than  No. 
2404A,  but  a  truer  and  better  picture  because  more 
closely  studied  from  the  model.  But  the  truth  to 
nature  of  these  Dutchmen — Hobbema,  Ruisdael, 
or  Everdingen — is  not  at  all  comparable  to  their 
truth  to  a  grey-toned  art-formula,  got  somehow 
from  Italy.  It  is  the  Italian  tradition  adapted 
with  modifications  to  Holland. 

2713.  Holbein  the  Younger,  Hans.  Portrait  of  Nico- 
las Kratzer.  This  is  a  portrait  in  which  the 


HOLBEIN  THE  YOUNGER  61 

painter  lugs  in  a  great  many  accessory  objects  to 
indicate  the  man's  profession,  and  spoils  the  picture 
in  doing  so.  It  is  much  hurt  by  the  light  wall 
and  the  instruments  hung  upon  it,  and  also  by  the 
instruments  placed  upon  the  table  in  the  fore- 
ground. It  lacks  in  concentration  as  in  colour. 
One  may  fairly  question  if  Holbein,  who  loved 
simple,  or  at  least  rich-coloured,  backgrounds  was 
entirely  responsible  for  this  picture.  The  picture 
is  repainted,  as  one  may  see  by  the  hands;  besides, 
it  has  been  rubbed  until  there  is  now  a  softness — 
a  lack  of  firmness — in  the  drawing.  It  belongs  in 
the  same  category  with  the  Gisze  portrait  at  Ber- 
lin (No.  586). 

2714.  Portrait  of  Bishop  Warham.  There  is  an- 
other portrait  like  this  in  Lambeth  Palace.  This 
may  be  a  repetition  by  Holbein  himself,  and  then 
again  it  may  be  an  old  copy.  The  hands  and  face 
are  wanting  in  firmness  and  sureness  of  drawing. 
In  either  event  the  picture  is  not  bad  in  colour, 
but  is  hurt  by  the  accessory  objects  in  the  composi- 
tion. They  are  ornate,  decorative,  beautifully 
done,  but  superfluous,  unnecessary,  in  the  way. 

2715. Portrait  of  Erasmus.     There  are  several  of 

**  these  Erasmus  portraits  in  existence,  but  this  is  a 
complete  profile  view  and  different  from  any  of 
the  others.  It  shows  Erasmus  the  humanist,  with 
the  close  mouth,  the  tired  eye,  the  keen  nose,  and 
hollow  cheek  of  the  scholar.  And  with  precise 
fingers  and  hands,  penning  perhaps  a  "Praise  of 
Folly."  What  a  psychological  study  it  is!  What 
a  facial  outline!  What  perfect  drawing!  Look 
at  the  mouth,  cheek,  and  neck.  Nor  does  it  lack 
in  colour  or  decorative  charm.  Look  at  the  beau- 


62  THE  LOUVRE 

tifully  patterned  background,  the  flesh  notes,  the 
white  spot  of  paper.  The  portrait  is  a  wonder  and 
a  delight. 

2717.  -    — Portrait   of  Sir    Thomas  More    or   Sir   Henry 
**       Wyatt.     The  identity  of  the  sitter  is   uncertain, 

but  not  that  of  the  painter.  This  is  Holbein  at 
his  best.  The  face  is  a  marvel  of  positive,  yes, 
superlative  drawing,  every  scrap  of  which  serves 
to  bring  out  the  spirit  and  character  of  the  man. 
The  eyes,  the  nose,  the  mouth — particularly  the 
mouth  distorted  by  the  loss  of  teeth — are  not  more 
remarkable  than  the  flabby  cheeks  and  heavy  chin. 
This  is  the  realism  of  truths  that  mean  something, 
that  count  in  bringing  the  type  and  class  and  per- 
sonality of  the  man  before  you.  It  is  a  wonderful 
portrait,  the  like  of  which  not  even  Holbein  often 
achieved.  The  hands  are  quite  as  much  of  a  por- 
trait as  the  face. 

2718.  -    —Portrait  of  Anne  of  Cleves.     This  is  the  por- 
trait that  Holbein  is  supposed  to  have  painted  for 
Henry  the  Eighth  when  he  was  thinking  of  marry- 
ing Anne  of  Cleves.     It  has  not  escaped  restora- 
tion in  the  face  and  hands,  but  is  still  lovely  in  its 
quiet,  restful  pose,  its  clasped  hands  and  rather 
sad  face,  its  beautiful  head-dress,  its  rare  red  cos- 
tume and  blue  background.     It  has  charm  about 
it  as  well  as  truth.     To  be  considered   critically 
in   connection  with   Holbein's  Duchess  of  Milan 
(No.  2475)  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  also 
painted  for   Henry   the   Eighth,   and  for  a  sim- 
ilar purpose.     The  London  picture  is  much  the  finer 
and  firmer  in  execution.     This  Louvre  work,  fine 
as  it  is,  has  the  surface  of  a  copy.     The  doing  of  the 
pearls  and  the  head-dress  is  weak  and  forceless. 


ITALIAN  SCHOOL  63 

2719.  -     —Portrait    of   Richard   Southwell.      It   is  prob- 
ably a  copy  of  the  Uffizi  picture  (No.  765),  but  a 
fairly  good  one.     The  clearness  of  the  outline  is 
well  given,  even  in  the  copy. 

2720.  -    —Portrait  of  a  Man.     In  the  Holbein  style  and 
of  his  school,  but  possibly  not  by  him.     He  would 
hardly  have  drawn  that  wooden  hand,  or  painted 
that  fur  collar,  though  old  repainting  might  account 
for  both.     The  ground  is  so  dark  the  figure  can  be 
seen  only  with  difficulty.     The  hair  and  cap  are 
almost  lost  in  it. 

2414.  Hooch,  Pieter  de.     Interior  of  a  Dutch  House. 

A  good  De  Hooch,  but  perhaps  not  his  best  effort. 
The  light  on  the  wall  at  the  back  is  very  charming, 
and  the  light  gradation  as  shown  in  the  tile  floor 
is  subtle.  The  figures  are  in  shadow  and  not  too 
well  drawn,  but  effective  as  form  and  colour.  One 
of  his  simple,  rather  homely  subjects,  but  one  he 
had  probably  seen  of tener,  known  better,  and  loved 
more  truly  than  his  later  more  aristocratic  drawing- 
rooms. 

2415.  -    —Dutch  Interior.     This  is  one  of  De  Hooch's 
high-life   scenes,   showing  much  ornate  furniture 
and  costume.     The  chief  figures  at  the  left  are  very 
rich  in  colour;   the  people  at  the  back  are  less  im- 
portant.    The  light  of  the  picture  is  fair,  as  also  the 
drawing  of  the  room,  the  columns,  and  the  floor. 
Notice  the  painting  of  the  light  on  the  patterned 
wall  at  the  back  and  the  atmospheric  quality  of 
the  room.     The  red  dress  is  slightly  reflected  from 
the  marble. 

1644.    Italian  School.     Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.     This 
portrait  has  been  attributed  to  Giorgione,  Raphael, 


64  THE  LOUVRE 

Francia,  Sebastiano  del  Piombo.  Crowe  and  Caval- 
caselle  think  it  by  Franciabigio  and  Mr.  Berenson 
gives  it  to  Bugiardini.  It  is  perhaps  too  early  a 
work  for  any  one  of  them  except  Francia,  wrhom  it 
doesn't  fit  in  any  way.  The  light  and  shade  rather 
point  to  Leonardo's  influence,  and  the  trees  sug- 
gest Franciabigio  or  Bugiardini.  It  is  an  acrid 
type  with  pinched  drawing  and  cramped  hands, 
but  it  is  not  wanting  in  good  workmanship  of  a 
constrained,  almost  Early  Renaissance  character. 
The  landscape  is  very  good.  Originally  in  a  smaller 
frame,  but  now  enlarged  (with  restorations  and 
new  materials)  at  the  sides,  notably  in  the  trees  at 
left. 

2721.  Italian  School  (North).  Annunciation.  This  is 
a  picture  of  decorative  beauty  in  its  gilded  robes 
and  ornamental  designs  in  stone  and  wood.  Be- 
sides that,  it  has  the  oddest  Italian  landscape  ever 
seen  in  north  Italy.  Notice  the  houses  and  sky  of 
the  background,  and  also  the  beauty  of  the  gold 
vase  with  red  flowers,  the  banked  roses  along  the 
stone  screen  in  the  foreground.  The  angel  sliding 
down  from  the  sky  on  what  looks  like  a  golden 
sled  is  a  Germanic  type,  as  is  also  the  Madonna. 
The  picture  is  a  puzzle  as  to  its  painter.  Crowe 
and  Cavalcaselle  thought  it  by  Justus  of  Germany. 
The  frame  is  new,  and  the  wings  were  not  painted 
by  the  same  hand  as  the  central  panel. 

1677.    Four  Persons  Before  a  Portico.      It  is  red  in 

colour,  hot  in  the  flesh,  and  not  very  well  painted. 
Possibly  some  follower  of  Melozzo  da  Forli  did  it. 
Not  an  important  work. 

2013.    Jordaens,  Jacob.     Infancy  of  Jupiter.     The  best 
*        Jordaens  in  the  Louvre.     There  is  quite  an  effect 


LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  65 

of  light  in  the  central  figure.  The  three  flesh  notes 
are  kept  well  in  accord  with  slight  predominance 
given  to  the  female  figure.  The  colour  is  virile  and 
positive  not  only  in  the  figures  but  in  the  red  cloth 
and  blue  sky.  There  has  been  too  much  rubbing 
with  that  cleaning-room  device — the  ball  of  cotton. 
The  surfaces  are  hurt  a  little. 

2014.    The  King  Drinks.     A  motive  that  Jordaens 

repeated  at  Brussels  and  elsewhere.  The  group 
is  animated  and  the  light  true,  though  not  suffi- 
ciently concentrated  for  effect.  The  surface  is 
smoother  than  usual,  and  the  colour  cooler.  Not 
a  bad  picture,  but  not  one  of  Jordaens's  best. 

2016. Portrait  of  Admiral  de  Ruyter.  A  fine  por- 
trait of  the  large  and  fleshy  type.  The  head 
and  the  face  are  flabby  (probably  peculiarities  of 
the  model),  and  the  shadows  somewhat  dusky. 
One  cannot  be  sure  that  because  the  face  is  red 
Jordaens  painted  it,  though  he  probably  did.  The 
brush-work  on  the  head  indicates  as  much.  The 
hands  are  not  too  well  drawn,  even  for  fat  hands. 
The  same  brush  perhaps  painted  the  so-called 
Velasquez  of  Admiral  Borro  at  Berlin  (No.  413A), 
which  see. 

2438  bis.  Keyser,  Thomas  de.  Portrait  of  a  Man. 
Precisely  and  firmly  drawn,  with  nothing  slurred 
or  omitted  and  also  nothing  left  to  the  imagination. 
It  is  all  there  with  a  photographic  exactness  that 
is  a  little  wearisome. 

1601.    Leonardo    da    Vinci.     Portrait    of  Mono    Lisa. 

***  The  fact  that  this  portrait  was  stolen  from  the 
Louvre  and  that  its  disappearance  led  to  much 
newspaper  comment  among  the  nations  may  in- 
crease present  interest  in  the  picture,  but  does  not 


66  THE  LOUVRE 

improve  its  artistic  merit  in  any  way.  On  the 
contrary,  the  trip  to  Italy  and  back  has  resulted 
in  just  a  trifle  more  rubbing  of  the  surface,  and 
every  one  knows  that  it  had  enough  before  it  left 
the  Louvre.  Again,  that  "  mysterious  smile/'  that 
many  talk  about,  has  little  to  do  with  the  portrait 
as  a  work  of  art,  except  as  Leonardo  thereby  sought 
to  give  the  lovable  character,  the  sweetness  of 
mood  of  the  sitter.  There  is  no  "mystery"  about 
it;  she  is  not  a  riddle,  nor  a  sphinx,  nor  world-weary, 
nor  representative  of  the  ages.  These  are  things 
read  into  the  picture  by  imaginative  people,  like 
Walter  Pater,  but  not  put  into  it  by  Leonardo. 
The  painter  was  painting  the  portrait  of  Madonna 
Elisabetta  Gherardini,  the  wife  of  Francesco  del 
Giocondo,  and  he  gave  her  a  smile  possibly  because 
she  possessed  it  in  reality,  but  probably  because 
he  had  got  into  the  studio  habit  of  painting  smiling 
people.  Look  about  you  in  the  Louvre  at  Leo- 
nardo's St.  Anne  (No.  1598)  or  the  Madonna  of 
the  Rocks  (No.  1599)  or  the  Lucrezia  Crivelli 
(No.  1600),  and  you  will  see  the  same  smile.  All 
the  Leonardos,  genuine  and  false  alike,  have  it. 
It  was  a  mannerism  of  his  taken  up  by  his  pupils, 
and  repeated  parrot-like  by  them,  with  no  attempt 
at  mystery  or  even  a  haunting  quality.  A  smil- 
ing face  made  a  round  face  with  beautifully  turned 
surfaces  and  contours,  and  the  painters  were  seek- 
ing the  contours  rather  than  the  smile. 

About  the  only  things  left  in  the  Mona  Lisa 
are  its  drawing,  its  light  and  shade,  and  its  contours. 
Even  these  are  badly  injured,  but  there  is  still  the 
tang  of  great  beauty  about  them  just  as  there  is 
in  the  battered  and  broken  Samothracian  Victory 
outside  on  the  stair  landing.  The  picture  was 


LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  67 

painted  with  the  greatest  skill  by  a  great  master, 
and  as  long  as  an  inch  of  it  remains  that  skill  will 
be  apparent  and  stand  for  art  in  its  best  sense. 
The  drawing  and  modelling  are  now  flattened 
somewhat  by  much  cleaning  and  rubbing.  This 
is  noticeable  on  the  forehead,  nose,  breast,  and 
hands.  The  cleaning  has  also  hardened  or  made 
less  subtle  the  contours  of  the  nose,  brows,  lips, 
cheeks,  and  chin.  But  how  beautiful  they  are  yet! 
What  wonderful  rounding  of  flesh  into  graceful 
lines  and  forms!  You  can  see  this  now  better  in 
the  hands  than  in  the  face.  What  superb  hands, 
with  their  beautifully  turned  fingers  and  round 
wrist!  You  will  never  again  see  such  beautiful 
hands  in  art,  such  refined,  aristocratic,  and  yet 
serviceable  hands.  They  are  perfect. 

The  light  and  shade  (Leonardo's  great  technical 
achievement)  is  now  somewhat  falsified.  The  high 
lights  have  been  rubbed  grey,  and  the  shadows 
seem  to  have  shrunk  into  the  hollows  of  the  eyes, 
nostrils,  lips,  and  throat.  The  contrast  is  now  too 
sharp  and  quite  the  reverse  of  that  which  Leonardo 
first  put  out.  He  wrote:  "As  smoke  loses  itself  in 
the  air  so  are  your  lights  and  shadows  to  pass 
from  one  to  the  other  without  any  apparent  sepa- 
ration." That  effect  is  wanting  now  because  the 
picture  has  been  flayed  and  rubbed.  That  plaint 
is  so  frequent  in  these  notes  that  perhaps  it  needs 
substantiation  occasionally.  Therefore,  hear  what 
Vasari  said  about  this  picture.  He  wrote :  "  The 
eyes  had  that  moisture  and  sparkle  which  we  see 
continually  in  nature,  and  cannot  be  rendered 
without  great  difficulty.  The  lashes,  showing 
how  the  hairs  grew  in  the  skin,  in  one  part  thicker 
and  in  another  thinner,  and  following  the  curves 


68  THE  LOUVRE 

of  the  pores,  could  not  be  more  natural.  The 
nose,  with  its  nostrils  pink  and  tender,  seemed 
to  be  alive.  The  mouth,  with  its  line  of  separation 
and  its  extremities  united  by  the  red  of  the  lips  with 
the  carnations  of  the  face,  seems  not  colour  but 
really  flesh.  In  the  dimple  of  the  throat,"  etc. 
There  was  probably  some  basis  for  Vasari's  rhap- 
sody, but  now  look  at  the  portrait  and  see,  if  you 
can,  the  lashes,  the  curves  of  the  pores,  the  pink 
and  tender  nostrils,  the  red  of  the  lips,  the  carna- 
tions of  the  face.  They  were  rubbed  off,  cleaned 
off  by  alcohol  and  other  solvents  many  years  ago. 
The  face  is  now  grey,  lead-hued;  and  so  far  as 
colour  goes  the  picture  shows  almost  as  well  in 
black-and-white  reproduction.  Go  close  and  look 
at  the  picture  and  you  can  easily  see  the  worn- 
down  look  of  the  surface. 

But  it  is  a  famous  masterpiece  and  famous  not 
without  good  reason.  Originally,  it  must  have 
been  perfect  technically.  You  have  not  yet  looked 
at  the  structure  of  the  head,  throat,  bust,  and 
figure.  You  have  not  noticed  the  roundness  of  the 
head,  the  bulk  of  the  body,  the  arms  within 
the  sleeves,  the  beautiful  drawing  of  the  costume, 
the  dark  halo  of  the  hair  about  the  face.  And 
mentally  what  serenity  there  is  about  it!  What 
calmness  and  repose !  She  is  not  a  sphinx,  smiling 
amid  the  chaos  of  the  world  back  of  her,  but  an 
Italian  beauty,  seated  on  a  balcony  overlooking 
an  Italian-shore  landscape — a  superb  woman  of 
the  Renaissance,  with  the  proper  aplomb  belong- 
ing to  her  rank.  The  portrait  is  the  best  authen- 
ticated of  Leonardo's  works,  though  after  the 
Italian  episode  there  will  doubtless  be  those  to 
believe  that  the  original  never  came  back. 


LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  69 

St.  Anne,  Madonna,  and  Child.  In  bad  con- 
dition, being  much  stained,  cleaned,  and  restored; 
but  it  still  holds  Leonardo's  design  and  reveals 
his  famous  light  and  shade  in  the  faces  and  figures. 
His  graceful  contours  may  be  seen  in  the  smooth 
turn  of  the  brows,  cheeks,  chins,  necks,  shoulders, 
arms.  Notice  them  particularly  in  the  face,  neck, 
and  shoulder  of  the  Madonna.  Notice  also  the 
sweep  of  graceful  lines  in  the  Madonna's  draperies 
from  the  shoulder  and  hip  and  in  the  blue  drapery 
falling  to  the  feet.  The  landscape  at  the  back  is 
mountainous  and  fantastic.  The  blue  background 
does  not  marry  or  unite  with  the  brown  foreground 
and  middle  distance.  The  mountain  forms  and  the 
foreground  under  the  feet  show  rock  cleavage  and 
stratification — things  that  reveal  Leonardo's  scien- 
tific information,  though  his  master,  Verrocchio, 
knew  about  them  before  him.  The  tree  is  some- 
what flat,  conventional,  and  blackish.  The  colour 
is  nearly  gone  but  still  pleases.  Notice  the  drawing 
of  the  feet  for  comparison  with  other  pictures  put 
down  to  Leonardo  in  this  gallery.  You  may  see 
where  Raphael  appropriated  them  in  La  Belle 
Jardiniere  (No.  1496). 

— Annunciation.  This  little  panel  is  attributed 
to  Leonardo  for  no  particular  reason  except  that, 
as  an  Irishman  might  say,  the  Madonna  looks  as 
though  painted  by  Lorenzo  di  Credi.  The  drapery, 
however,  is  Leonardesque  and  suggests  the  youthful 
Leonardo.  It  probably  never  cut  much  of  a  figure 
as  art  and  does  not  now.  It  is  a  hesitating  affair, 
done  for  a  predella,  perhaps,  with  rather  good  light 
and  shade  in  the  building  at  the  right.  A  larger 
variation  with  some  contradictions  in  the  Uffizi 
which  is  also  attributed  to  Leonardo  (No.  1288). 


70  THE  LOUVRE 

1599.  Madonna  of  the  Rocks.  This  must  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  Leonardo,  coming  as  it  did,  almost 
beyond  a  doubt,  directly  from  the  collection  of 
Francis  I  and  bearing  on  its  face  evidences  of  its 
genuineness.  It  is  not  a  supreme  example  of 
Leonardo,  nor  did  he  do  all  of  it.  A  study  of 
Leonardo  drapery  among  the  drawings  by  old 
masters  in  another  part  of  the  Louvre  will  suggest 
that  Leonardo  did  not  formally  arrange  and  spread 
the  drapery  in  pleats  as  in  the  blue  dress  of  the 
Madonna  at  the  bottom,  and  that  he  did  not 
crinkle  drapery  with  a  papery  quality  to  it  as  in 
the  yellow-coloured  silk  in  the  centre.  Moreover, 
the  mountain  landscape  is  more  fantastic  than 
in  the  St.  Anne  or  the  Mona  Lisa,  though  a  similar 
showing  of  rock  stratification  is  made  in  the  fore- 
ground. The  faces  are  a  little  sugary  and  have 
been  too  much  cleaned.  They  have  not  the  round- 
ness of  contours  that  are  shown  in  the  larger  St. 
Anne  picture,  nor  are  the  draperies  here  managed 
with  a  regard  for  the  sweep  of  line  of  the  St.  Anne. 
The  drawing  is  right  enough,  and  the  shadows  are, 
perhaps,  over-emphasised  in  such  depressions  as 
dimples,  eyes,  and  mouths.  The  whole  picture  has 
darkened  but  is  still  fine  in  colour.  The  composi- 
tion is  pyramidal,  with  the  diagonal  lines  running 
off  to  the  little  St.  John  on  one  side  and  the  angel 
on  the  other  side.  It  is  one  of  the  few  pictures 
by  Leonardo  still  extant,  and  must  serve,  in 
measure,  as  a  criterion  for  judging  other  works 
attributed  to  him.  See  the  note  on  the  Leonardo 
Madonna  of  the  Rocks,  No.  1093,  in  the  National 
Gallery,  London. 

1597.  St.  John  Baptist.  It  should  be  compared 

closely  with  the  Madonna  of  the  Rocks,  first  in 


LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  71 

the  matter  of  light  and  shade.  It  is  excessive  in 
this  respect,  in  its  sooty  shadows,  for  instance. 
Leonardo  was,  perhaps,  exaggerated  in  his  "sfu- 
mato,"  but  his  follower  here  intensifies  the  ex- 
aggeration. Next,  the  forefinger  and  hand  of  the 
St.  John  should  be  compared  with  those  of  the  an- 
gel. The  latter  have  articulation  in  the  joints  and 
knuckles;  the  former  are  round  and  smooth.  The 
shoulder  again,  so  round,  smooth,  and  boneless,  is 
quite  different  from  those  of  the  children  in  the 
Madonna  of  the  Rocks  or  that  of  the  Madonna 
in  the  St.  Anne  picture  (No.  1598).  The  compari- 
son may  be  carried  into  the  drawing  of  the  eyes, 
nose,  forehead,  mouth,  chin.  The  handling  cannot 
be  compared  because  the  pictures  have  been  too 
much  cleaned  and  restored,  but  it  may  be  noted 
that  the  hair  is  much  coarser  in  the  St.  John,  both 
in  lighting  and  in  painting.  The  Mona  Lisa  smile 
is  here  and  is  overdone.  It  is  too  sweet.  A  close 
study  of  the  picture  will  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  if  Leonardo  did  it  his  hand  had  lost  its  cun- 
ning. It  is  probably  the  work  of  a  follower — some 
one  close  to  Salaino. 

1602.   Bacchus.     A  comparison  may  be  instituted 

between  this  picture  and  the  Madonna  of  the  Rocks 
in  the  same  way  as  with  No.  1597.  The  comparison 
should  take  up  hand  and  forefinger  with  hand  and 
forefinger,  face  with  face,  contour  with  contour, 
line  with  line.  The  conclusion  may  be  reached 
that  it  is  a  poorer  picture  than  No.  1597  and  is  by 
some  follower  of  the  school  like  Cesare  da  Sesto. 
The  landscape  is  not  bad,  but  it  is  not  Leonar- 
desque  in  trees,  sky,  mountains,  or  foreground. 
The  figure  has  been  much  cleaned  and  flattened  in 
the  modelling — something  in  which  it  was,  per- 


72  THE  LOUVRE 

haps,  never  very  strong.     Look  at  the  shoulders 
for  this. 

1600.  Portrait  of  Lucre zia  Crivelli.  A  comparison 

**  of  this  head  with  the  head  of  the  Madonna  of  the 
Rocks  would  not  result  in  any  great  triumph  for 
the  latter.  For  this  portrait  is  extremely  well  done, 
and  if  it  is  not  given  to  Leonardo  it  is  not  because 
it  is  unworthy  of  him.  It  is  very  accurately  drawn, 
a  little  hard  in  the  hair,  perhaps,  but  beautiful 
in  the  contours  of  the  nose,  cheeks,  and  chin, 
and  well  drawn  in  the  mouth,  the  throat,  and  the 
bust.  There  is  a  little  flash  of  light  under  the  jaw 
apparently  reflected  from  the  dress.  The  dress  is 
rich  and  warm,  beautiful  in  pattern  and  colour, 
lovely  in  texture  and  surface.  A  fine  portrait  of  a 
charming  type,  and  the  only  fault  that  one  finds  with 
it  is  that  it  is  a  trifle  smooth  and  pretty  in  its  sur- 
faces. It  is  not  unworthy  of  Leonardo,  only  it  is 
not  what  we  expect  from  him  or  imagine  he  might 
have  done.  If  we  compare  it  closely  with  the 
portrait,  No.  1531,  here  attributed  to  Solario,  we 
may  get  a  suggestion  of  its  possible  painter.  The 
same  hand  (not  Solario's)  possibly  did  them  both. 
There  is  not  only  a  family  likeness  between  them, 
but  the  drawing,  colour,  shadows,  surface,  and 
texture  are  similar.  Notice  the  way  the  head  is 
posed  and  the  shadows  fall  on  the  neck.  Even 
the  little  mannerism  of  the  reflected  light  on  the 
jaw  appears  in  No.  1531,  though  in  less  degree. 
The  painter  of  these  portraits  also  did  No.  433  in 
the  Castello  Museum  at  Milan,  there  attributed  to 
Boltraffio.  The  Lucrezia  Crivelli  has  been  cleaned 
but  is  still  yellow  with  oil  or  varnish. 

1603A. Madonna  and  Child.  Put  down  in  the  cat- 
alogue as  a  Flemish  copy  of  Leonardo.  It  is  by 


LIPPI,  FRA  FILIPPO  73 

the  same  hand  that  did  the  so-called  Leonardo 
(No.  1493)  at  Munich  and  the  attributed  Lorenzo 
di  Credi  (No.  13)  at  Dresden.  It  is  practically  a 
replica  of  the  Munich  picture. 

1343.  Lippi,   Fra  Filippo.     The    Nativity.     The  attri- 
bution is  not  believable.     The   landscape   alone, 
with  its  distance  and  light  sky,  would  deny  it. 
The  Madonna  is  as  far  a  remove  from  the  familiar 
face  and  figure  of  the  supposed  Lucrezia  Buti  as 
the   Child   from   Filippo's   usual    type.     But   the 
Madonna  is  lovely,  the  landscape  is  interesting, 
and  the  angels  in  the  clouds  are  charming  even  if 
none  of  them  is  by  Fra  Filippo.     The  ruin  is  some- 
what regular  in  its  decay  and  the  Joseph  hard  and 
leathery.     Compare  it  with  No.  1344 — a  genuine 
Filippo  but  now  rather  darkened.     No.  1343  is  by 
some  eclectic  painter  who  shows  various  influences. 

1344.    Madonna    Enthroned    with    Saints.      A    large 

and    important    picture    now    become    somewhat 
darkened  in  the  flesh  notes.     The  drawing  is  a 
little  formal,  the  drapery  angular,  the  colour  sub- 
dued, the  angel  types  with  their  gilded  wings  very 
pure  and  tender,  the  Madonna  and  Child  a  little 
heavy.     The  light  of  the  picture  (as  well  as  the 
colour)  is  dull,  as  note  the  sky.     Lighting  from  the 
sky  was  just  begun  at  this  time,  and  at  first  it  was 
not    well    understood.     Perhaps    the    handsomest 
part  of  the  picture  is  the  kneeling  saint  at  the  left. 
What  a  wonderful  red  robe  he  wears,  how  beauti- 
fully it  is  disposed  as  regards  its  lines,  and  how 
cleverly  handled  it  is  in  its  shadows !     The  angel  at 
the  right  repeats  the  red  note. 

1345.   Madonna  and  Child.     A  bright  panel  painted 

in  all  probability  by  some  painter  of  the  Floren- 


74  THE  LOUVRE 

tine  School  of  name  unknown.  The  angels  at  the 
back  are  most  attractive  and  not  unlike  Filippo's. 
The  Madonna  is  angular  in  the  jaw  and  not  at- 
tractive in  the  figure,  but  again  suggests  some  one  in 
Filippo's  School,  or  possibly  a  follower  of  Botticelli. 

N.  N.  Lorenzo  Monaco.  Christ  in  the  Garden  and  the 
Women  at  the  Tomb.  Two  panels  of  an  altar- 
piece  joined  together  and  now  having  much  depth 
of  colour  and  richness  of  old  gilding,  especially  in 
the  haloes.  The  work  is  not  particularly  well 
done,  but  has  feeling,  with  a  decorative  sense. 
The  robes  are  excellent  in  colour.  How  well  the 
space  is  filled !  The  outside  frame  hurts  the  effect. 

1349.  Lotto,    Lorenzo.      Woman     Taken    in    Adultery. 

**  A  fine  picture  in  its  massed  group,  its  action,  its 
types,  its  characterisation.  Notice  as  a  rare  thing 
in  Italian  art  that  all  these  heads  and  faces  are 
distinctly  and  positively  Jewish.  And  what  heads 
and  faces  they  are,  from  the  wailing  culprit  to  her 
brutal  accusers  on  either  side  of  her!  What  colour 
is  here!  It  has  variety  and  harmony,  depth  and 
yet  beauty  and  splendour.  Notice  also  the  atmos- 
pheric envelope,  the  feeling  of  dark  recesses  and 
shadows,  out  of  which  come  mysterious  half-seen 
heads  and  faces.  How  wonderful  these  faces  are 
in  shadow,  as,  for  instance,  the  second  at  the  left! 
The  right  side  of  the  picture  is  less  interesting. 
Cleaned  in  the  neck  and  head  of  the  woman  and 
somewhat  repainted  in  spots,  but  the  drawing  and 
colour  are  still  fine.  A  masterful  picture,  especially 
in  the  feeling  of  the  crowd. 

1350.    St.   Jerome   in   the  Desert.     An   early   Lotto, 

and  valuable  largely  on  account  of  filling  out  his 
artistic  biography.     The  landscape  is  the  picture. 


LUINI,  BERNARDINO  75 

It  is  done  minutely,  but  has  depth  and  truth  about 
it.  How  fine  it  is  in  its  shadows,  its  rock-drawing, 
its  trees !  St.  Jerome  is  merely  a  note  of  colour — a 
note  repeated  in  the  sky  at  the  back. 

1351.    Holy   Family.     The  picture  is  cold  in  blues, 

which  are  reflected  even  from  the  white  cloth  under 
the  Child  and  from  the  draperies  and  wings  of  the 
angels.  The  reds  and  yellows  of  the  saints  at 
either  side  fail  to  relieve  the  blue-grey  tone  of  the 
picture.  Lotto's  management  of  colour  and  light 
here  is  quite  the  reverse  of  Correggio's  method. 
The  centre  of  this  picture  is  cold  and  surrounded 
by  warm  notes.  The  scheme  is  not  altogether 
successful.  But  the  picture  is  charming  in  the 
sentiment  and  pathos  of  the  Madonna,  as  also  in 
the  beautiful  angels  back  of  her.  Notice  the  heads 
of  the  two  angels  as  they  show  beneath  the  white 
wings.  They  are  very  lovely.  An  odd  picture  in 
the  all-blue  robing  of  the  Madonna,  and  the  all- 
white  of  the  angels.  Odd  again  in  the  subject, 
which  is  neither  a  Holy  Family  nor  a  Nativity  but 
in  the  nature  of  a  Discovery. 

1359 1  Luini,    Bernardino.    Adoration    of   Magi.     (In 

1360  J  the  Salle  Duchatel,  Hall  V.)  A  number  of  frescoes 
*  by  Luini  and  his  school  are  here  shown  together. 
In  them  Luini's  smooth,  graceful  style  and  har- 
monious colour  show  to  great  advantage.  They 
are  not  marvels  of  strength  but  certainly  possess 
grace  of  form  and  contour,  with  much  charm  of 
colour.  The  gold  work  is  effective  and  decorative. 
These  frescoes,  with  those  at  Milan,  seem  to  go  far 
beyond  any  of  his  easel  pictures. 

1353.  Holy  Family.  It  has  some  agreeable  colour 

and  is  not  badly  drawn,  but  one  wearies  of  the  re- 


76  THE  LOUVRE 

peated  note  of  sentiment — the  saccharine  quality 
of  it. 

1354.   The  Sleep  of  Jesus.     A  graceful  Luini,  with 

warm  colour  and  an  atmosphere  that  is,  perhaps, 
too  substantial.     Luini,  after  Leonardo,  was  one 
of  the  best  of  the  Milanese  School — a  very  decora- 
tive and  pleasing  painter,  if  not  a  commanding  one. 
See  the  frescoes  in  the  Salle  Duchatel,  Nos.  1359 
and  1360.     This  picture  was  formerly  attributed  to 
Solario.     It  is  even  now  an  odd  Luini,  having  less 
of  the  cloying  and  insipid  than  usually  goes  with 
his  works. 

1355.    Salome   with   the  Head  of  John   the  Baptist. 

An  excellent  example  of  Luini  in  his  softer  and 
prettier  mood.      It  is  agreeable  recitation,  if  not 
very  realistic  or  forceful  work.     The  drawing  is 
good,  and  the  colour  is  pleasing. 

996.  Malouel,  Jean  (Attributed).  The  Dead  Christ. 
The  painter  is  supposed  to  have  been  an  uncle  of  Pol 
de  Limbourg.  The  drawing  is  still  half  Byzantine 
in  the  hands  and  eyes,  and  the  sentiment  or  feeling 
of  it  has  a  Byzantine  quality.  The  figures  fill  the 
circle  fairly  well,  and  the  colour  is  good.  In  the 
La  Fenestre  catalogue  it  is  under  the  French  School 
of  the  fourteenth  century. 

995.  Malouel  (Jean)  and  Bellechose  (Henri).  (At- 
tributed.) Last  Communion  and  Martyrdom  of 
St.  Denis.  A  primitive  work  with  much  harsh  real- 
istic drawing  in  the  figures  and  with  simple,  pure 
colours  that  have  depth  and  beauty.  Look  at  the 
quality  of  the  blues  and  reds.  The  gold  work  is 
decorative.  See  also  No.  996. 

1367.    Mainardi,  Bastiano.     The  Virgin  and  the  Child. 
It  is  a  little  ornate  in  costume,  haloes,  and  lilies 


MANNI,  GIANNICCOLO  77 

and  somewhat  weak  in  sentiment  and  drawing. 
The  contours  are  round,  the  surfaces  smooth,  and 
all  the  faces  too  full  for  their  skins.  It  is  porcelain- 
like  in  texture.  The  landscape  at  the  left  is  in- 
teresting. There  exist  several  versions  or  copies 
of  this  work,  which  seems  to  have  been  popular  at 
one  time. 

1367A. Madonna  and  Child.     A  rather  fine  picture 

in  type  and  sentiment — too  fine  in  sentiment  for 
Mainardi,  though  it  has  peculiarities  like  the  col- 
umns and  the  hand  that  seem  to  point  toward  him. 
These  latter  are,  however,  superficial.  It  is  nearer 
allied  in  spirit  to  the  so-called  Botticelli  (No. 
1300A),  though  it  seems  impossible  that  one  painter 
could  have  done  both  of  them.  They  are  not  of 
the  same  kind  or  quality.  This  picture  has  much 
loftiness  of  pose  and  beauty  of  feeling.  The 
drawing  is  not  bad,  the  colour  quite  rich,  and 
the  atmospheric  setting  very  good.  The  books  at 
the  right  suggest  Mainardi  again,  but  Mr.  Berenson 
intimates,  with  a  query,  that  it  was  painted  by 
Piero  Pollajuolo.  Perhaps  that  is  a  better  attri- 
bution, though  the  picture  seems  too  good  for  Piero. 

1372.  Manni,  Gianniccolo.  Holy  Family.  A  picture 
by  a  close  follower  of  the  Perugino  formulas, 
with  gilding,  architecture,  robes,  landscape — all 
the  tools  and  trappings  of  Umbrian  art — and  with 
not  bad  decorative  results.  It  is  more  mature  in 
small  features  than  Perugino,  but  lacks  in  origi- 
nality. Everything  here  is  appropriated  from 
other  painters.  See  the  pictures  put  down  to 
Manni  (Nos.  1369,  1370,  1371),  all  of  them  pleas- 
ing in  colour  and  all  of  them  suggestive  of  the 
Perugino-Pinturicchio  tradition. 


78  THE  LOUVRE 

1374.    Mantegna,     Andrea.      Madonna     of     Victory. 

*  Painted  for  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  For- 
novo,  where  Gonzaga  believed  he  had  defeated 
Charles  VIII.  Quite  a  famous  picture,  and  bris- 
tling with  excellences,  but  hardly  Mantegna's 
masterwork.  It  has  too  much  in  it  and  is  too 
crowded  for  its  space.  The  Gonzaga  kneeling  is 
undersized  and  looks  like  a  pygmy,  the  saint  back 
of  him  is  a  giant,  while  the  Madonna  is  neither  one 
thing  nor  the  other.  Beautifully  drawn,  except 
in  spots  here  and  there,  and  with  that  foreshort- 
ened hand  of  the  Madonna  which  we  see  in  Leo- 
nardo's Madonna  of  the  Rocks  and  Correggio's 
Madonna  of  St.  Francis  at  Dresden.  All  the  detail 
is  wrought  with  care  and  accuracy;  the  textures  in 
the  stuffs,  armour,  and  marbles  of  the  throne  are 
given  quite  perfectly;  the  robes  are  as  beautiful  in 
colour  as  in  drawing.  The  arabesque  of  fruit  and 
leaves  at  the  back,  with  coral  and  beads,  is  again 
quite  perfect,  reminding  one  of  the  same  effect  in 
the  frescoes  of  Mantegna  at  Mantua,  and  the 
Parma  frescoes  of  Correggio.  But  the  united  im- 
pression is  not  good.  The  picture  lacks  in  sacri- 
fice and  subordination,  and  is  hard,  almost  rigid, 
in  its  figures,  its  throne,  and  its  arabesque.  That 
is  the  Early  Renaissance  of  it.  But  of  course  it 
is  a  work  of  note,  despite  any  flaws  that  one  may 
feel  in  it. 

1373.   Calvary.     In  the  early  hard  style  of  Mantegna, 

with  much  rigidity  in  the  figures,  as  though  they 
had  been  modelled  in  bronze.  The  draperies  also 
show  the  influence  of  sculpture — the  sculpture  of 
Donatello.  But  the  types  are  noble,  lofty,  majestic 
in  their  dignity  and  presence;  and  some  of  the  heads 
are  strong  in  their  characterisation,  as  notice  those 


MANTEGNA,  ANDREA  79 

of  the  soldiers.  The  figures  on  the  crosses  are  con- 
torted and  stiffened.  What  precise  but  accurate 
drawing  appears  everywhere!  The  landscape  is  a 
bit  crude  in  the  sky  and  rather  small  in  its  detail 
of  cities  and  towns.  The  picture  was  part  of  a 
predella  of  an  altar-piece  done  for  the  Church  of 
San  Zeno,  at  Verona,  and  may  have  been  worked 
upon  by  pupils. 

Parnassus.     It  has   always  been  difficult  to 

reconcile  this  picture  and  No.  1376  with  Mantegna's 
late  work  in  other  galleries.  For  Mantegna  was 
an  Early  Renaissance  painter,  with  great  power 
and  dignity  in  his  figures  and  great  knowledge  of 
both  nature  and  art,  but  rigid,  statuesque,  posi- 
tive, with  uncompromising  lines  that  were  more 
often  angular  than  flowing.  He  seldom  shows  or 
suggests  the  grace  of  the  High  Renaissance  in  his 
figures.  Yet  here  in  these  pictures  is  grace  of  a 
very  superior  kind  with  hardly  a  trace  of  hard- 
ness or  rigidity.  Look  at  the  Venus  and  Mars  at 
the  top  of  the  picture — how  gracefully  they  lean 
in  opposite  directions!  Notice  the  dancing  figures 
below,  so  supreme  in  their  rhythmic  movement 
and  life.  Where  do  you  see  the  like  elsewhere  in 
Mantegna's  work?  They  come  nearer  to  the 
Apollo  and  the  Muses  by  Giulio  Romano  in  the 
Pitti.  These  are  statuesque  figures,  if  you  like, 
but  it  is  the  statuesque  of  Sansovino,  not  Dona- 
tello.  The  Early  Renaissance  was  only  a  promise 
of  grace;  the  High  Renaissance  was  its  fulfilment. 
And  where  again  in  Mantegna's  work  do  you  see 
such  bright,  such  brilliant,  such  cunning  play  of 
colour  as  here?  Certainly  not  in  the  Madonna  of 
Victory,  done  in  1496,  when  Mantegna  was  sixty- 
five.  The  drawing  and  colouring  are  almost  un- 


80  THE  LOUVRE 

believable  because  so  far  beyond  Mantegna's 
other  work.  This  picture  is  freer  than  its  com- 
panion (No.  1376),  has  more  action  in  the  figures, 
more  colour  in  the  robes,  and  is  larger  in  the  land- 
scape and  broader  in  the  sky.  It  would  seem  a 
later  and  more  mature  work,  though  both  belong  in 
Mantegna's  latest  period.  Finally,  notice,  through 
the  arch  of  rock,  the  landscape  so  unlike  anything 
we  know  in  Mantegna's  work.  A  superb  picture. 

1376.  -  —  Wisdom  Victorious  Over  Vice.  This  and  the 
**  preceding  number  were  done  for  Isabella  d'Este 
and  are  doubtless  by  the  same  hand.  No.  1376 
has  not,  however,  the  interest  of  No.  1375  in  either 
colour  or  form.  It  is  grotesque  in  the  Vices  but 
done  with  a  larger  feeling  for  bulk  and  roundness 
of  body  than  is  usual  with  Mantegna.  The  half- 
nude  figure  with  the  green  drapery  is  very  graceful, 
as  also  the  two  figures  coming  up  to  the  left  of  her, 
and  the  pursuing  Minerva  in  her  helmet,  breast- 
plate, and  gorgeous  garments.  The  arabesque  of 
foliage,  the  water-plants  in  the  foreground,  the 
trees  at  the  back  are  painted  with  great  care,  the 
leaves  being  smaller  and  the  work  finer  than  in 
No.  1375.  The  landscape  with  the  sky,  the  hill 
at  left,  and  also  the  figures  in  the  clouds  are  per- 
haps more  familiarly  Mantegnesque  than  any  other 
portion  of  the  picture.  The  colour,  as  in  the  Mi- 
nerva and  the  pursuing  figures,  is  very  charming. 
The  draperies  are  superb  in  their  revelation  of 
form  and  their  graceful  line.  It  seems  an  earlier 
work  than  No.  1375,  though  doubtless  done  at  the 
same  time  and  for  the  same  room  at  Mantua. 

N.  N.  St.  Sebastian.    This  picture  is  the  Louvre's 

***     new  Mantegna,  brought  here  in  1912  from  Au- 


MANTEGNA,  ANDREA  81 

vergne.  In  1481,  Chiara  Gonzaga,  daughter  of 
Federigo  Gonzaga,  married  Gilbert,  Count  of 
Montpensier,  and  brought  with  her  to  the  Mont- 
pensier  Chateau,  in  Auvergne,  this  picture  of  St. 
Sebastian.  Thence  it  went  to  the  Church  of 
Aigueperse,  and  from  there  to  the  Louvre.  It  is 
a  work  of  commanding  importance  not  only  in 
size  but  in  quality.  It  represents  Mantegna — 
the  painter  of  the  statuesque  and  sculpturesque — 
superbly.  It  is  drawn  to  the  last  degree  of  truth 
and  fidelity.  Nothing  has  escaped  the  eye  or  the 
brush — even  the  beard  of  the  man  at  the  bottom, 
the  leaves  of  the  trees,  the  little  figures  at  the 
right,  the  marble  reliefs  of  the  arch,  the  stones  of 
the  building  are  all  minutely  done.  And  the 
large  facts  are  just  as  truthfully,  if  largely,  handled. 
Notice  the  comprehensive  drawing  of  the  figure,  its 
truth  of  scale,  of  bulk,  of  weight.  How  positively 
it  stands,  or  is  bound  with  ropes,  or  is  pierced  with 
arrows!  How  true  the  column,  capital,  and  arch 
at  the  back  with  all  the  fluting,  patterns,  and  re- 
liefs! How  absolute  the  broken  marbles  at  the 
bottom,  or  the  fig-tree  in  leaf,  or  the  distant 
mountain  with  houses  and  ruined  temples,  or  the 
sky  with  those  flaky-white  clouds.  And  how  beau- 
tiful, as  well  as  true,  it  all  is  as  line  and  colour! 
The  white  loin-cloth  is  kept  down  as  grey  as  the 
marbles,  and  the  white  clouds  are  greyed,  too,  so 
that  the  figure  shall  have  prominence.  But  the 
figure  is  only  slightly  higher  in  key.  The  harmony 
of  the  picture  is  perfect  in  its  grey-silvery  tone.  It 
may  not  have  been  so  planned  originally,  and  it 
may  have  come  to  its  present  fineness  of  colour 
through  age,  but  the  fact  that  it  is  in  distemper 
would  suggest  that  some  of  it,  at  least,  was  designed. 


82  THE  LOUVRE 

At  any  rate,  it  is  a  perfect  decorative  harmony  now. 
Across  the  gallery  it  looms  large  in  its  form  and 
becomes  like  a  pearl  in  its  colour.  What  wonder- 
ful dignity,  not  only  in  the  work,  but  in  the  concep- 
tion of  the  suffering  yet  enduring  saint  standing 
against  that  beautiful  broken  fragment  of  archi- 
tecture! Did  Mantegna  think  to  suggest  here  the 
light  of  Christianity  in  the  saint  outshining,  even 
in  death,  the  crumbling  paganism  of  the  ancient 
world?  It  does  no  harm  to  believe  it.  The  work 
of  art  is  no  less  wondrous  for  it.  Go  back  through 
the  double  doors  of  the  French  Room  and  from 
there  look  at  this  Mantegna.  How  it  holds  at  a 
distance  and  how  the  figure  becomes  lighter  and 
stronger  in  flesh  colour! 

1379.     Maratta,    Carlo.      Portrait  of  Maria  Rospigliosi. 

By  one  of  the  Decadents,  but  not  a  bad  portrait. 
It  has  too  much  of  the  simply  pretty  in  the  face, 
hands,  and  dress,  but  for  the  seventeenth  century 
it  is  rather  good  work.  Too  much  cleaned. 

1381.    Marches!,  Girolamo.     The  Bearing  of  the  Cross. 

With  some  rather  tragic  action.  The  drawing 
severe  and  not  too  accurate,  the  colour  cool. 

1384.  Massone,  Giovanni.  Nativity.  A  decorative, 
three-panelled  altar-screen  of  much  beauty  in  the 
colour  as  in  the  strange  landscape.  The  only 
work  in  public  galleries  of  this  practically  unknown 
painter.  He  was  not  a  master  of  the  first  or  even 
of  the  second  rank,  but,  like  all  the  church  painters 
of  his  time,  he  had  a  decorative  sense.  Repainted, 
as  may  be  seen  in  the  head  and  hands  of  Joseph. 

Master  of  the  Death  of  the  Virgin.  See  Cleve, 
Juste  van. 


MEMLING,  HANS  83 

N.  N.  Master  of  the  Kinsfolk  of  the  Virgin.  The 
Presentation  in  the  Temple.  An  altar-piece  with 
much  gold  work  in  the  ground  and  on  the  robes, 
very  brilliant  colours,  and  groups  of  people  and 
angels  composed  in  circles.  It  is  not  very  well 
drawn,  but  it  is  sumptuous  in  colour  and  shows 
as  a  fine  piece  of  decoration.  Notice  the  robes  of 
the  high  priest,  the  little  choir-boys,  the  three  lit- 
tle angels  in  the  right-hand  lower  corner,  the  blue 
cherubim  at  the  top. 

1005A.    Master   of   Moulins.     Magdalen   and  a  Donor. 

A  graceful  picture,  whoever  its  painter.  The  draw- 
ing is  very  clear  in  its  outlines  but  well  understood 
and  remarkable  for  giving  the  feeling  of  form. 
Notice  this  in  the  hands  as  well  as  in  the  figures  and 
faces.  The  colour  is  excellent.  What  quality  in  the 
greens,  browns,  reds,  and  yellows !  See  the  pearls  be- 
low and  also  the  gold  work.  The  types  are  French, 
or  at  least  Burgundian,  with  small  suggestion  of 
Van  der  Goes  about  them,  by  whom  the  Master  of 
Moulins  (Jean  Perreal?)  was  supposed  to  have  been 
influenced.  The  pictures  of  at  least  two  different 
painters  have  been  put  down  under  this  name  in 
the  European  galleries.  See  the  notes  upon  Nos. 
1004  and  1005,  under  "French  School." 

2026.    Memling,    Hans.      The    Madonna    with   Donors. 

*  Known  also  as  the  Madonna  of  Jacques  Floreins. 
A  large  Memling  of  considerable  importance.  The 
simplicity  of  the  grouping  on  either  side  of  the 
Madonna,  the  absence  of  much  elaboration  in  the 
throne,  the  subdued  architecture,  the  subordinated 
but  very  beautiful  landscapes  at  the  sides  make 
up  a  perhaps  more  imposing  Memling  than  is 
to  be  found  elsewhere.  The  drawing  of  it  is 


84  THE  LOUVRE 

quite  beyond  reproach,  and  as  for  the  donors  with 
their  magnificent  heads,  where  and  when  has 
Memling  produced  anything  truer  or  stronger? 
The  sentiment  of  the  Madonna  is  not  excessive 
and  the  colour  of  her  robes  is  no  more  than  enough 
to  dominate  the  picture.  In  other  respects,  in 
tone  and  ensemble,  the  picture  seems  quite  right, 
except  that  it  has  no  envelope  and  is  rather  hard 
in  the  lines.  That  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  it 
has  suffered  from  restorations.  The  surface  has 
been  repainted,  and  possibly  the  bloom-like  flesh 
notes,  the  hard  carpet,  and  the  airless  space  are 
not  Memling's. 

N.  N.  Portrait  of  an  Old  Woman.     The  head  is  still 

fine  in  characterisation  though  the  picture  has 
been  much  cleaned.  It  is  Memling  in  both  head 
and  hands.  It  is  the  companion  piece  to  No.  529c 
in  the  Berlin  Gallery.  Early  work  and  recently 
acquired  by  the  Louvre.  See  also  the  Head  of  a 
Monk  in  the  same  room,  without  a  number,  but 
attributed  to  Memling. 

20241 St.    John    Baptist    and   St.    Mary   Magdalen. 

2025  /  Probably  the  wings  of  a  triptych.  Fine  in  senti- 
ment and  good  in  workmanship.  The  Magdalen 
is  in  a  beautiful  brocade,  and  back  of  her  are  in- 
teresting small  figures.  Good  landscapes  in  both 
panels  with  flowery  patterns  in  the  foreground. 
Memlingesque,  at  any  rate,  and  quite  good  enough 
for  the  master. 

2027.    Marriage  of  St.   Catherine  and  a  Donor  with 

John  Baptist.  A  diptych  of  considerable  beauty 
of  colour,  especially  in  the  left  panel.  The  land- 
scapes are  very  charming  and  the  figures  well 


METSU,  GABRIEL  85 

drawn.  The  style  suggests  Memling  but  is  not 
quite  positive  enough  for  him. 

2028.    Memling,  Hans,  School  of.    Resurrection.    A 

triptych  with  a  St.  Sebastian  in  the  left  panel  and 
an  Assumption  of  the  Virgin  in  the  right.  A  pic- 
ture of  some  beauty  and  na'ive  charm.  The  figure 
of  Christ  is  slight,  but  graceful,  the  angel  in  white 
charming,  the  soldiers  in  armour  well  drawn  and 
painted,  and  at  the  back  a  broad,  if  crude,  land- 
scape. The  architectural  frame  and  the  arabesque 
of  fruit  are  minutely  done.  The  St.  Sebastian,  re- 
peating the  motive  of  the  Brussels  picture  (No. 
291),  is  a  fine  figure,  and  the  archers  are  striking 
in  their  colour  as  in  their  long,  thin  forms  so  sug- 
gestive of  Thierri  Bouts.  Notice  in  the  right  panel 
the  huddling  of  the  crowd  looking  up  and  the 
figure  of  the  Madonna  disappearing  in  the  clouds. 
The  picture  is  of  Memling  inspiration  and  a  fairly 
good  one  at  that.  Some  one  of  his  followers 
probably  did  it.  But  putting  it  down  to  the  School 
of  Memling  seems  to  give  it  less  importance  than 
it  deserves. 

2457.    MetSU,  Gabriel.    Woman  Taken  in  Adultery.    An 

unusually  large  Metsu,  not  bad  in  characterisa- 
tion nor  in  composition,  and  quite  beautiful  in  col- 
our, in  light,  and  in  atmosphere.  The  robes  are 
easily  painted  but  the  underlying  drawing  is  a 
little  weak. 

2460.   The  Music  Lesson.    A  handsome  little  picture, 

well  set  and  well  painted  all  through.  In  many 
respects  it  is  quite  up  to  a  Terborch. 

2459.    An   Officer  Receiving  a  Young  Woman.     One 

*       of  Metsu's  first-rate  pictures,  excellent  in  drawing 


86  THE  LOUVRE 

as  in  painting,  and  with  much  fine  colour.  The 
upper-class  life  of  Holland  is  here  shown  with  dig- 
nity and  distinction.  How  easily  the  lady  sits,  the 
officer  stands!  The  background  has  darkened. 

2462.   A  Dutch  Woman.     With  fat  painting  in  the 

whites  and  much  richness  of  colour.  Metsu  is 
not  to  be  scheduled  with  the  Dous  and  Netschers. 
He  was  a  far  better  painter  than  they,  and  nearer 
to  Terborch  or  Steen.  See  also  No.  2463. 

2464.  Portrait  of  Admiral  Tromp.  It  is  a  command- 
ing portrait  in  bright  red.  The  face  has  suffered 
from  some  retouching.  Metsu  may  have  done 
this  portrait,  but  there  are  no  strong  indications 
of  his  brush  to  be  seen  in  it.  It  is  effective  work, 
nevertheless. 

2030A.  Metsys,  Qiientin.     Madonna  and  Child.     It  has 

sentiment  and  feeling  about  it,  though  it  looks  like 
a  school  piece.  The  figures  a  little  injured,  per- 
haps. 

2029.   Banker  and  Wife.     Sharp  in  the  drawing  but 

true  enough  in  the  small  details — even  to  the  re- 
flection in  the  glass  in  the  foreground.  It  fails, 
however,  to  make  an  impressive  picture.  Most  of 
these  money-changer  pictures  have  been  put  upon 
Quentin  Metsys  but  do  not  belong  to  him.  They 
are  nearer  to  Romerswael  or  to  Jean  Metsys. 

24661  Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz.    Portraits  of  a  Man 

2467  1  and  Woman.  True  likenesses,  no  doubt,  and  done 
with  exactness.  The  drawing  is  sharp  and  close, 
but  the  effect  is  fairly  good.  They  are  substantial 
portraits  and  not  to  be  passed  by  because  not  of 
Rembrandtesque  style  and  quality. 


MORO,  ANTONIO  87 

2055.    Mol,  Pieter  van.     Head  of  a  Young  Man.     It  is 

more  striking  than  intrinsically  fine.  The  drawing 
is  loose  and  the  painting  rather  rambling.  It  pos- 
sibly belonged  to  a  large  picture  from  which  it 
has  been  cut  away. 

1393.  Montagna,  Bartolommeo.    Ecce  Homo.    A  pa- 
thetic type  of  the  Christ,  done  with  some  pre- 
cision in  the  drawing,  though  it  has  been  softened 
by  retouching.     The  figure  was  originally  articu- 
lated too  much — in  the  shoulders,  for  instance. 
The  brows  and  nose  are  harsh  again,  but  there  is 
a  sense  of  reality  about  the  head,  the  hair,  the 
thorns,  the  shadows. 

1394.    Three  Children  Playing  Instruments.    The  cat- 
alogue title  is  misleading.    The  children  are  angels, 
a  part  cut  away  from  an  altar-piece,  and  they  are 
playing  for  the  glory  of  the  Madonna  that  was  once 
above  them.     Naive  and  childlike  in  the  types, 
with  the  unconscious  air  so  often  seen  in  the  figures 
of  Carpaccio,  who  possibly  had  some  influence  upon 
Montagna.     A  fine  bit  of  colour,  if  leaving  some- 
thing to  be  desired  in  the  way  of  good  drawing. 

11751  Moretto  of  Brescia.  St.  Bonaventura,  St.  An- 
1176J  thony,  and  Others.  Two  panels  and  two  saints  in 
each  panel,  with  fine  robes  and  rather  strong  faces. 
They  have  Moretto's  silvery  tone,  but  they  do  not 
represent  him  very  well,  being  rather  small  and 
slight  work  for  a  man  who  revelled  in  large  altar- 
pieces.  The  colour  is  his. 

2480 1   Moro,   Antonio.     Portraits  of  Luis  del  Rio  and 

2481  /  Wife.     They  were  probably  the  wings  of  an  altar- 

*        piece  originally.     As  portraits,  they  are  very  fine 

—finer,  perhaps,   than  can  be  explained  by  the 


88  THE  LOUVRE 

name  of  Moro.  They  are  superb  illustrations  of 
character  in  portraiture.  The  hands  alone  might 
make  a  picture  even  were  the  strong  heads  omitted. 
The  coats  of  arms  are  a  little  spotty,  and  the  back- 
grounds of  landscape  are  now  darkened  so  that  the 
flowers  about  the  woman  hardly  show  at  all,  and 
the  hills  are  plunged  in  gloom.  (In  the  Salle 
Duchatel,  Hall  V.) 

2479.  -  —  The  Dwarf  of  Charles  V.  Interesting  in  the 
theme.  As  for  the  painting,  it  is  in  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent style  from  Nos.  2480  and  2481,  though  it  is 
not  impossible  that  all  three  pictures  emanated  from 
the  same  studio.  The  dwarf  seems  to  be  Moro's 
work. 

1710.  Murillo,  Bartolome  Esteban.  The  Birth  of  the 
Virgin.  This  is  perhaps  as  poor  a  work  technically 
as  Murillo  ever  executed.  It  should  be  studied 
for  its  bad  drawing,  false  light,  black  shadows,  and 
weak  colour.  The  analysis  of  error  is  always  an 
important  factor  in  the  establishment  of  truth. 
It  is  proper  to  state,  however,  that  some  critics  and 
the  public  at  large  do  not  agree  with  this  dictum 
and  insist  upon  it  that  the  picture  is  "one  of  the 
most  charming  in  existence." 

1717.   Young  Beggar.     It  is  fairly  well  drawn  and 

painted  and  good  in  its  effect  of  light.  It  does  not 
improve  on  acquaintance — none  of  these  beggar 
pictures  do — but  it  is  technically  better  than  many 
of  his  Madonna  pictures,  though  hard,  dry,  and 
rather  colourless.  Other  examples  of  this  genre 
are  at  Munich. 

1708.    Immaculate  Conception.      Not   SO  famous   as 

No.  1709,  but  perhaps  a  trifle  better  done,  though 
the  sentiment  of  it  is  of  the  same  insipid  quality. 


NICCOLO  ALUNNO  89 

1713.   Holy  Family.     A    soft,    sweet-faced,    pretty 

Murillo  that  has  little  character,  strength,  colour, 
or  drawing  about  it.  But  its  popularity  knows  no 
bounds  or  limits.  It  is  of  the  same  stamp  as  the 
Immaculate  Conception,  No.  1709. 

1709.  Immaculate  Conception.  This  is  the  Soult 

Murillo  purchased  in  1852  for  the  then  enormous 
sum  of  615,000  francs.  It  was  at  that  time  thought 
a  marvellous  creation,  but  has  since  fallen  in  critical 
esteem,  until  to-day  it  holds  a  very  modest  place. 
And  rightly  so.  The  sentiment  is  excessive,  the 
Guido  Reni  face  of  the  Madonna  is  insipid,  the 
attitude  affected  (look  at  the  hands),  the  colour 
merely  pretty,  the  drawing  rambling,  loose,  un- 
certain. The  placing  of  the  figure  on  the  canvas 
and  surrounding  it  with  clouds  and  light  is  not  badly 
done,  but  it  is  too  weak  for  art,  though  it  was  prob- 
ably effective  at  one  time  as  religion. 

1712.  -  — Virgin  with  the  Beads.  A  much  better- 
painted  picture  than  Murillo's  other  Madonnas  in 
the  Louvre.  The  colour  has  a  tang  to  it,  and  the 
Madonna  does  not  look  as  though  she  were  going 
to  die  in  an  ecstasy  of  sentimentality.  It  is  so 
good  a  picture  that  one  may  be  pardoned  for  en- 
tertaining the  queer  feeling  that  perhaps  Murillo 
did  not  paint  it,  after  all. 

1716.  Miracle  of  San  Diego.  A  scattered  proces- 
sional composition  of  small  merit.  The  central 
angels  are  graceful  and  have  some  rather  pretty 
colour  about  them.  The  scenes  at  left  and  right 
are  almost  as  much  "out"  of  the  composition  as 
though  on  separate  canvases. 

1120.  NiCCOl6  Alunno.  Scenes  from  the  Passion.  The 
predella  of  a  picture  painted  in  1492.  It  is  done 


90  THE  LOUVRE 

with  spirit  and  "go,"  as  notice  the  two  little  angels 
in  the  extreme  left-hand  compartment.  The  cen- 
tral panels  again  show  action  and  life.  The  colour 
is  now  golden-brown  enlivened  with  red,  but  it 
has  doubtless  become  deepened  by  time.  Appar- 
ently in  good  condition,  genuine,  and  a  picture  to 
be  studied  by  the  student  of  early  Umbrian  art. 

2498.    Ostade,   Adriaen    van.    Interior  of  a  Cottage. 

To  be  studied  in  connection  with  the  so-called 
Rembrandt,  The  Carpenter's  Shop,  No.  2542, 
across  the  room,  for  similarity  of  theme,  treatment, 
and  handling.  Ostade  possibly  painted  both  pic- 
tures. See  also  in  one  of  the  side  cabinets  his 
charming  interior,  No.  2502,  for  further  comparison. 
The  so-called  Rembrandt  is,  of  course,  the  best 
of  the  three.  That  is  why  it  was  given  to  Rem- 
brandt. 

2497.  -  —  The  Fish  Market.  An  excellent  piece  of  work 
with  a  large  feeling  for  form  and  broad,  compre- 
hensive drawing.  Notice  the  face  and  hands  of  the 
man.  And  the  fish.  What  a  crowd  at  the  back! 
Nos.  2500  and  2503  by  the  same  hand  are  also  very 
well  painted. 

2513.  Ostade,  Isaac  van.  A  Pig  Sty.  A  companion 
piece,  and  almost  a  replica  so  far  as  theme  and 
treatment  go,  is  shown  in  the  Brussels  Gallery 
(No.  357)  under  the  name  and  signature  of  Paul 
Potter.  The  Brussels  picture  is,  like  this  one  in 
the  Louvre,  a  very  good  example  of  the  work  of 
Isaac  van  Ostade.  See  also  No.  2510. 

1399.    Palma  Vecchio.     Adoration  of  Shepherds.    The 

*  picture  is  said  to  have  two  false  signatures  of  Titian 
in  the  foreground.  There  is  no  question  about  its 
being  by  Palma,  and  before  it  was  flayed  in  the  clean- 


PERREAL,  JEHAN  91 

ing  room  it  must  have  been  a  picture  of  consider- 
able beauty.  Notice  how  the  little  figure  of  the 
Christ  Child  and  the  Madonna's  hands  holding 
him  have  been  injured.  The  faces  are  just  as  badly 
repainted,  barring  that  of  the  kneeling  shepherd, 
who  seems  less  injured  than  the  others.  What 
large,  full  drawing  of  drapery  and  what  richness 
of  colour  still!  And  notice  the  breadth  of  treat- 
ment in  the  landscape.  A  small,  half-obliterated 
picture  is  hanging  on  the  brick  wall  at  the  back. 

1400.  Palmezzano,  Marco.     The  Dead  Christ.     With 
mourning  angels  holding  the  arms.     A  hard  piece 
of  drawing  and  modelling,  but  rather  good  in  col- 
our,   and   with   a   nice   suggestion   of   landscape. 
Notice  the  flatness  of  the  fingers,  the  folding  of  the 
drapery,  the  flint-like  rocks  at  the  top. 

1401.  Panetti,   Domenico.     Nativity.     A   very  simple 
composition  of  large  masses  and  few  objects  and 
much  the  better  for  its  simplicity.     The  drawing 
of  the  drapery  is  mannered,   the  hands  are  too 
large,  the  brick  arch  is  very  flat,  the  Child's  bed 
very  hard.     But  there  is  richness  of  colour.     And 
what  good  sentiment  without  sentimentality  I 

1048.  Perreal,  Jehan  (Jean  de  Paris).  Madonna  and 
*  Child  with  Donors.  Here  is  a  picture  that  ap- 
proaches the  Van  Eyck  School  in  the  Madonna 
with  the  large  but  crinkled  drapery,  the  composi- 
tion, and  the  minuteness  of  the  details.  But  the 
types,  the  robes  in  their  cut  and  pattern,  the  ar- 
chitecture are  different.  The  picture  comes  from 
northern  France,  in  all  probability,  but  whether 
by  Perreal  is  not  so  easily  determined.  We  have 
no  authentic  work  by  him  to  judge  by,  unless 
we  accept  him  as  identical  with  the  Master 


92  THE  LOUVRE 

of  Moulins.  A  fine  picture  all  through.  The 
Madonna  is  lovely  and  the  donors  quiet,  digni- 
fied, truthful,  excellent  in  every  way.  Notice  the 
beautiful  detail  of  the  patterns,  borders,  flowers, 
and  the  good  colour. 

1566.  Perugino,  Pietro.  St.  Paul.  With  some  indi- 
cations of  its  being  merely  a  school  piece,  though 
generally  accepted  as  by  the  master's  brush.  The 
hands,  the  outlines  of  the  neck,  the  screen  at  the 
back  are  not  exactly  Peruginesque.  It  is  careless 
work. 

1565.  Holy  Family.  A  much  scrubbed  and  stained 

Perugino,  but  still  showing  his  round  faces,  his 
warm  colouring,  and  his  Umbrian  sentiment.  It 
makes  no  attempt  at  cleverness  in  composition, 
but  gives  the  figures  in  a  row  and  rather  posing 
for  their  pictures.  It  is  not  an  early  Perugino; 
the  Madonna  is  becoming  a  little  heavy  in  the 
jowl,  and  the  colours  are  deeper  and  richer  than 
in  his  earlier  work. 

1564.  Holy  Family.  It  is  a  circular  composition  in 

which  the  lines  of  the  figures  supplement  and  com- 
plement the  lines  of  the  frame.  There  are  "  eyes  " 
in  the  drapery,  and  the  hands  are  somewhat  sharply 
articulated  in  the  joints.  The  types  and  also  the 
colour  are  very  attractive.  The  beautiful  angels 
at  the  top  are  pure,  if  thin,  in  sentiment,  and  the 
landscape  possesses  the  same  attenuated  feeling. 
An  early  work. 

1566A. St.   Sebastian.     "A   body   belonging  to  the 

Renaissance  containing  a  soul  belonging  to  the 
Middle  Ages" — to  quote  Taine.  And  both  of 
them  are  beautiful.  Here  is  Perugino's  drawing 
at  its  best — save  perhaps  in  the  chin.  The  figure 


PESELLINO  93 

is  flat,  abbreviated,  a  little  hard;  but  expressive, 
true,  and  withal  graceful  or  approaching  grace. 
What  a  serene  sky  and  still  landscape !  And  what 
architecture  for  the  framing  of  the  figure!  A  fine 
picture.  The  head  and  shoulders  show  in  another 
version  at  the  Hermitage  (No.  1938),  possibly  a 
copy. 

1567.    Combat  Between    Love    and    Chastity.     Like 

No.  1261,  this  picture  is  to  be  regarded  more  as  a 
landscape  with  figures  than  as  figures  with  a  land- 
scape. It  is  the  ensemble  of  it  that  counts,  and  the 
figures  are  merely  graceful  lines  or  spots  of  colour 
in  the  scheme,  though  they  undoubtedly  influence 
that  scheme  greatly.  It  is  not  so  very  certain  that 
Perugino  did  these  figures.  The  landscape  is 
more  like  him,  and  very  charming  it  is,  too.  With- 
out being  so  clever  or  so  elaborate  as  the  Costa 
(No.  1261),  it  is  warmer  in  colour  and  more  attrac- 
tive in  light  and  air.  But  even  the  landscape  is 
somewhat  unusual  for  Perugino.  An  excellent 
decorative  piece  that  probably  came  out  of  the 
Perugino  workshop. 

1573.  Perugino,  School  of.  Madonna  and  Child  Sur- 
rounded  by  Cherubim.  A  slight  affair.  Another 
panel  of  the  same  kind  and  by  the  same  hand,  in 
the  Budapest  Gallery  (No.  83),  there  ascribed 
to  Pinturicchio — a  closer  guess  than  Perugino. 
It  is  probably  by  Antonio  da  Viterbo. 

1414.  Pesellino,  Francesco.  St.  Francis  Receiving  the 
Stigmata  and  Sts.  Cosmo  and  Damian  Curing  a 
Sick  Man.  Two  small  panels  that  possess  much 
depth  and  richness  of  colour.  Notice  the  bright  col- 
our at  the  right,  the  landscape  at  the  left.  The 
panels  probably  belonged  originally  to  the  predella 


94  THE  LOUVRE 

of  an  altar-piece  by  Fra  Filippo  in  Santa  Croce, 
Florence.  Other  parts  of  the  predella  are  in  the 
Academy  at  Florence. 

1415.    -    — The  Dead  Christ  and  Two  Legendary  Scenes. 

The  two  nude  figures  hanging  and  the  saint  look- 
ing on  at  the  right  have  some  feeling  for  form  and 
are  realistic.  The  drawing  is  not  accurate,  but 
the  colour  has  some  strength.  The  attribution 
may  be  questioned.  The  work  belongs  somewhere 
in  the  Umbrian  School  of  Perugino. 

1416AJ  Piero  di   Cosimo.     (Attributed  to.)     Marriage 
1416B  J  of  Thetis  and  Peleus  and  Triumph  of  Venus.     Two 

decorative  panels  done  perhaps  for  some  wedding 
chest.  And  handsomely  done.  They  are  perhaps 
too  cunning  in  drawing  for  Piero,  too  graceful  in 
line,  too  delicate  in  colour.  Botticelli's  influence 
is  very  apparent  everywhere.  In  141  GB  the  figure 
in  the  shell  was  probably  inspired  by  Botticelli's 
Venus,  as  the  figures  at  the  extreme  right  by  the 
Graces  in  Botticelli's  Spring.  Notice  that  the  nude 
figures  at  the  left  are  much  rounder  in  contours 
than  is  customary  with  Piero.  Handsome  panels 
and  of  some  interest  in  art  history.  Mr.  Berenson 
gives  them  to  Alunno  di  Domenico. 

1417.    Pinturicchio,  Bernardo.     Madonna  and  Child. 

It  gives  one  but  a  small  notion  of  Pinturicchio, 
though  perhaps  genuine  enough.  It  has  some  nice 
sentiment  with  ornamental  gold  work,  but  Pintu- 
ricchio should  be  studied  at  Siena. 

1352.  Piombo,  Sebastiano  del.  The  Visitation.  This 
picture  is  now  in  bad  shape,  due  to  its  transference 
to  canvas  and  repainting,  but  it  still  suggests  Se- 
bastiano's  types,  figures,  draperies,  and  colours. 


POTTER,  PAULUS  95 

The  robes  and  figures  are  largely  done  and  well 
drawn.  The  warm  sky  reflects  the  reds  and  yellows 
of  the  foreground.  The  flesh  notes  are  greyed. 

1422  bis.  Pisanello  (Vittore  Pisano).  Portrait  of  a 
*  Princess  d'Este.  This  is  probably  a  portrait  of 
Ginevra  d'Este.  The  head  and  neck  are  flat,  and 
have  possibly  been  flattened  somewhat  by  clean- 
ing, but  the  picture  is  still  a  masterpiece  of  char- 
acterisation. There  is  nothing  pretty  or  even 
regular  about  the  features,  but  one  sees  here 
youth  and  innocence,  with  repose,  dignity,  even 
nobility  of  presence.  The  hair  has  been  plucked 
from  the  forehead  and  eyebrows,  as  was  the  fash- 
ion of  the  day.  The  robe  is  superb,  and  superb 
also  the  flowery  pattern  at  the  back,  every  note  of 
which  is  in  perfect  harmony.  This  is  art  of  a  very 
distinguished  kind.  Perhaps  it  requires  an  ac- 
quired taste  to  appreciate  it,  but  there  is  no  doubt 
about  its  high  quality.  Its  decorative  content  in 
such  things  as  the  beautiful  outline  of  the  face, 
or  the  splendid  dress  hanging  from  the  shoulder, 
or  the  drawing  and  painting  of  the  flowers  is  suf- 
ficient in  itself  to  indicate  its  rank  as  art. 

2526.    Potter,  Paulus.     Horses  at  the  Door  of  a  Cottage. 

A  very  good  picture  by  some  second-rate  Little 
Dutchman,  but  not  by  Paul  Potter.  It  is  too 
easily  handled,  especially  in  the  man  and  the  cot- 
tage, for  Potter.  The  signature  on  the  chimney 
speaks  for  itself,  and  speaks  rather  loudly  at  that. 
The  same  signature  is  on  a  pig-sty  picture  at 
Brussels,  by  Isaac  van  Ostade.  After  the  supply 
of  Potters  was  exhausted  it  seems  Van  Ostade  was 
fair  game  for  those  who  wanted  Potters.  See  the 
note  on  the  Brussels  picture  (No.  357). 


96  THE  LOUVRE 

2527.   The  Meadow.     A  large  Potter,  similar  in  com- 
position to  the  Young  Bull  at  The  Hague,  and  in 
the  same  style  of  painting.     It  is  hard  in  drawing, 
dry  in  handling,  with  no  colour,  spirit,  or  life  to 
hold  it  up.     The  sky  has  been  cleaned  to  death. 
The  cattle  never  were  alive. 

2528.   Horse  at  Large.     A  picture  with  more  air  and 

envelope  than  Potter  usually  obtained,  but  even 
so,  not  a  remarkable  work  in  any  way. 

2529.  -    —  Woods  at  The  Hague.    This  is  Potter  at  his 
best  in  this  gallery,  but  the  work  is  in  every  way 
different  from  No.  2526. 

741.  PoilSSin,  Nicolas.  Diogenes  Casting  Away  His 
Bowl.  The  title  is  only  an  excuse  for  showing  a 
classic  landscape  of  far  reach  and  much  strength. 
Poussin  never  went  beyond  this  in  landscape,  and 
some  of  his  latter-day  compatriots  in  the  Fontaine- 
bleau-Barbizon  School  never  equalled  it.  There 
is  no  sentiment  about  it,  and  it  lacks  in  spontaneity, 
but  it  has  style,  proportion,  unity.  The  scheme  of 
light  is  low  in  key,  but  it  is  well  sustained  through- 
out. The  picture  is  perfectly  held  together.  It  is  a 
depth  and  not  a  flat  surface,  and  has  air,  distance, 
and  a  real  sky  overhead.  The  trees  are  of  classic 
variety,  but  majestic,  the  hills  solid  and  substan- 
tial, the  distant  Athens  quite  true  in  light.  Fore- 
ground and  distance  are  one  and  the  same  earth, 
and  the  light  comes  from  one  source — the  sun. 
The  colour  is  dull,  corresponding  to  the  light.  A 
well-made  picture. 

N.  N.  Poetic  Inspiration.  A  newly  acquired  Pous- 
sin with  figures  of  life  size.  It  has  much  excellence 
of  drawing  and  far  more  light  and  colour  than 


RAPHAEL  SANZIO  97 

usual  with  Poussin.  It  is  now  his  most  consider- 
able figure  picture  in  the  Louvre — his  best,  perhaps. 

734.  -  — Shepherds  in  Arcadia.  A  picture  famous  for 
its  story  but  not  for  its  art.  It  is,  however,  a 
fair  example  of  Poussin's  good  drawing,  hot  flesh, 
and  crude  blues  and  reds.  His  other  figure  pic- 
tures, with  the  exception  of  the  Poetic  Inspiration, 
are  no  better  than  this,  and  may  be  passed  without 
mention. 

737.   Ruth  and  Boaz.     Almost  all  of  the  Poussins 

are  dull  in  their  lighting.  This  picture  is  a  good 
example  of  his  almost  unbelievable  light.  No 
grain-field  at  midday  could  show  such  darkness. 
The  landscape,  otherwise  than  in  light,  is  good,  and 
the  costumes  are  not  bad  as  colour  spots.  His 
Garden  of  Eden  (No.  736)  and  the  Deluge  (No. 
709)  are  of  the  same  lightless  variety. 

1504.    Raphael  Sanzio.     St.  Michael  Overcoming  Satan. 

This  picture  was  restored  as  early  as  1530  by  Pri- 
maticcio,  and  has  undergone  many  cleanings,  res- 
torations, and  transferences  since,  so  that  one  can 
hardly  say  what  is  Raphael  in  it  and  what  is 
restoration.  The  design  is  probably  Raphael's 
but  the  execution  that  of  pupils — primarily,  Giulio 
Romano.  It  is  not  a  satisfactory  work  and  does 
not  represent  Raphael  at  all  well.  The  action  is 
excited,  the  drapery  flutters  out,  obviously  to  fill 
space,  the  wings  are  hardly  sustaining,  and  the 
spear  is  part  of  an  academic  model's  pose.  The 
landscape  is  not  Raphael's,  and  the  colour  is  now 
more  the  restorer's  work  than  the  master's  or  the 

?upil's.     The  light  is  dim  and  wants  in  warmth, 
t  is  not  worth  while  forming  an  idea  of  Raphael 
from  this  picture. 


98  THE  LOUVRE 

1496.  La  Belle  Jardiniere.  The  exaggerated  repu- 
tation of  this  picture  is  hardly  justified  by  its  qual- 
ity. It  is  not  Raphael  at  his  best  by  any  means. 
It  is  early  and  (for  him)  rather  immature  work, 
but  it  is  not  wanting  in  skill  or  charm.  The  com- 
position is  pyramidal  and  the  drawing  acceptable 
but  not  wonderful.  The  placing  of  the  group  in 
the  landscape  is  very  good,  and  the  landscape 
itself,  with  its  feeling  of  space,  is  excellent.  The 
hands  of  the  children  are  not  well  done,  the  feet 
of  the  Virgin  are  copied  after  the  feet  in  Leonardo's 
picture  (No.  1598),  the  flesh  painting  is  somewhat 
pasty,  like  Lorenzo  di  Credi's,  the  handling  is 
smooth  and  rather  pretty  as  in  the  Madonna's 
hair  and  robe.  The  colour  is  not  remarkable  and 
the  foliage  in  the  foreground  is  rather  overdone. 
The  best  part  of  the  picture  is  the  composition — 
the  placing  of  the  figure  in  space — and  the  land- 
scape at  the  back,  though  there  is,  of  course,  con- 
siderable grace  in  the  turning  of  contours  and  the 
drawing  of  the  vestments.  As  for  the  sentiment,  it 
is  not  strong.  Notice  the  apparent  malformation 
of  the  left  shoulder,  due  to  cleaning;  also  the 
Child's  left  arm. 

1498.  -  —  Holy  Family  of  Francis  I.  The  drawing  is 
graceful  in  the  circling  lines  of  the.  Madonna,  in  the 
swing  of  t  the  red-gowned  figure  through  the  oval 
of  the  blue  overdress,  in  the  angel  with  the  flowers, 
in  the  St.  Anne  and  St.  Joseph.  All  the  figures 
are  grouped  about  the  Child,  who  is  springing 
eagerly  toward  his  mother.  There  is  movement 
everywhere  except  in  the  St.  Joseph  with  the  fine 
head,  who  represents  the  repose  of  the  group  in 
contrast  to  the  hurrying  angel.  The  surface  is 
smooth;  the  colour  is  now  yellow  and  hot.  The 


RAPHAEL  SANZIO  99 

picture  has  been  over-cleaned  and  repainted.  It 
has  also  been  relined.  It  is  signed  on  the  edge  of 
the  Virgin's  cloak,  which  is  suspicious.  A  real 
Raphael  never  needs  a  signature,  but  a  school 
piece  usually  does.  This  is  of  the  latter  character. 
It  is  more  like  Giulio  Romano  than  Raphael,  having 
Giulio's  drawing  and  mannered  flesh  colour.  Carry 
it  in  your  eye  into  the  long  gallery,  and  compare 
it  with  the  Joanna  of  Aragon  (No.  1507)  for 
the  flesh  colour  and  smooth  surface  as  shown  in 
the  head  and  neck  of  the  Madonna.  No  doubt 
Raphael  designed  the  picture,  though  he  is  not  to 
be  judged  wholly  by  it. 

— Portrait  of  Baldassare  Castiglione.  If  this 
picture  did  not  bear  the  magic  name  of  Raphael, 
should  we  spend  much  time  looking  at  it  or  marvel- 
ling over  its  workmanship?  Is  its  workmanship 
so  very  good?  Beginning  at  the  cap,  is  it  so  well 
drawn  or  so  well  marked  by  light  and  shade?  Is 
the  face,  with  its  commonplace  brow,  its  hard  eye- 
lids, and  its  matty,  painty  beard  remarkable  in 
any  way  as  a  study  of  character,  or  as  drawing,  or 
as  painting?  The  disposition  of  the  costume,  is 
that  easy,  restful,  or  is  the  coat  badly  drawn  in  the 
sleeves  and  shoulders,  flattened  in  patches,  hard 
in  the  edges,  and  wholly  lacking  in  repose?  Does 
it  give  much  idea  of  the  figure  beneath  it,  or  is 
there  much  of  a  figure  there?  The  hands  are 
over-cleaned  and  are  not  exactly  bad  in  drawing, 
but  were  they  ever  very  good  ?  Finally,  what 
about  the  colour  of  this  picture  and  the  atmos- 
pheric envelope — are  they  good  or  are  they  indif- 
ferent? The  picture  has  been  repainted  in  the 
face  and  much  restored,  but  was  probably  never  a 
very  fine  portrait  even  though  Raphael  did  it. 


100  THE  LOUVRE 

1497.  -  —  The  Madonna  of  the  Blue  Diadem.  This 
comes  perilously  near  to  being  a  dinner-plate  pic- 
ture with  its  pretty  faces,  its  porcelain  surfaces, 
and  its  harsh  colouring.  Look  at  the  blues  with 
their  positive  falsity  of  value  and  want  of  tone. 
And  what  awkwardness  in  the  hand  and  arm  with 
the  veil!  What  bad  drawing  in  the  figure  of  the 
Madonna,  especially  in  the  shoulders  and  knees! 
And  is  this  Raphael's  feeling  for  space?  I*  this 
his  landscape?  Did  he  draw  that  Child  on  that 
dreadful  blue  drapery?  One  may  venture  to  doubt. 
It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  even  Giulio  Romano 
could  do  this.  And  yet,  probably  he  did. 

1499. The   Holy   Family.     It   will   not  answer  for 

Raphael.  It  is  some  kind  of  school  piece,  cold  in 
colour  though  hot  in  flesh,  with  little  to  commend  it 
as  art.  The  head  of  the  St.  Anne  reappears  in  the 
head  No.  1509  bis,  which  see. 

1509  bis.  -  —Head  of  St.  Elizabeth.  This  head  appears 
in  the  small  picture,  No.  1499  here  shown  and  also 
in  a  large  canvas  by  Giulio  Romano  at  the  Madrid 
Gallery  (No.  300).  Giulio  and  his  school  were 
probably  responsible  for  all  three  pictures. 

1500.  -    —  St.  John  the  Baptist  in  the  Wilderness.    There 
is  a  repetition  of   this   picture   in   the   Uffizi  at 
Florence.     Each  is  claimed  as  the  original,   but 
Raphael    probably   wras    guiltless    of   them    both. 
The  landscape,  light  and  shade,  and  flesh  colour 
are  not  Raphaelesque.     The   picture  is  possibly, 
but  not  certainly,  by  Sebastiano  del  Piombo. 

1501.   St.  Margaret.     This  picture  has  been  much 

cleaned  and  restored,  first  by  Primaticcio  and  after- 
ward by  cleaning-room  celebrities.     It  is  in  bad 
condition,  and  one   can   now   only  guess   at   its 


RAPHAEL ,  3&NZK )  *01 

painter.  It  is  not  likely  that  Raphael  ever  saw  it. 
A  variant  of  it  by  Giulio  Romano  is  at  Vienna 
(No.  31). 

— St.  Michael.  Probably  not  by  Raphael,  and 
a  good  argument  might  be  made  to  the  effect  that 
it  is  not  even  an  Italian  picture.  But  the  panel 
is  hardly  worth  enough  as  art  to  warrant  discus- 
sion. 

— St.  George.  This  has  little  more  value  as  art 
than  No.  1502  and  is  far  removed  from  the  as- 
tonishing or  the  wonderful.  Yet  it  is  very  likely 
a  genuine  Raphael,  done  when  he  was  a  boy. 
The  little  figure  of  St.  Sabra  at  the  back  is  better 
than  the  saint  on  his  wooden  horse.  The  landscape 
is  very  good. 

Portrait    of   a     Young    Man.      Long    known, 

copied,  photographed,  and  engraved  as  Raphael's 
own  portrait  by  himself.  The  "own  portrait"  no- 
tion has  now  been  abandoned,  but  the  attribu- 
tion of  the  picture  to  Raphael  still  sticks.  If 
Raphael  had  one  technical  excellence  above  another, 
it  was  that  of  good  drawing.  Such  being  the  case, 
how  are  we  to  understand  the  very  badly  drawn 
hand  and  wrist  so  much  in  evidence  in  this  picture? 
And  the  queer  cocked  eyes,  the  nose,  and  the  mouth, 
the  badly  drawn  figure  and  costume?  Also  the 
want  of  atmosphere,  with  the  overmodelled  head 
falling  out  of  the  picture-frame?  Also  the  different- 
from-Raphael  handling  of  the  hair  and  flesh,  the 
wholly  alien-from-Raphael  scheme  of  colour?  The 
picture  was  probably  painted  by  Bacchiacca,  as 
Morelli  pointed  out  years  ago.  Poor  Raphael! 
If  he  has  such  pictures  as  this  hung  about  his  neck, 
he  will  hardly  hold  his  place  in  the  empyrean. 


102  THE  LOUVRE 

1507.    Joanna   of  Aragon.     A   very   good    portrait, 

but  somewhat  mannered  in  the  hands  and  perhaps 
too  elaborate  in  the  costume.     The  colour  is  rich, 
the  palace  background  ornate,  the  handling  appar- 
ently facile.     The  catalogue  quotes  Vasari  to  the 
effect  that  Raphael  made  only  the  head  from  life 
and  Giulio  Romano  completed  it;    but  recently 
published  correspondence  intimates  that  the  study 
of  the  head  was  made  by  a  pupil.     In  other  words, 
the  portrait  is  what  is  nowadays  called  a  workshop 
portrait — something  executed  by  pupils.     But  that 
goes  to  show  that  a  workshop  picture  or  a  Giulio 
Romano  is  not  necessarily  either  a  swindle  or  a 
failure.     This  is  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.     It 
probably  pleased  those  for  whom  it  was  executed, 
as  it  pleases  many  people  to-day.     It  has  much 
to  commend  it.     Compare  the  head  and  shoulders 
for  flesh  colour  and  contours  with  the  Madonna  in 
the  Holy  Family  of  Francis  I  (No.  1498),  also  ex- 
ecuted by  Giulio  Romano. 

1508.   Portraits  of   Two  Men.     There  is  no  reason 

whatever  to  think  it  by  Raphael.     It  is  doubtful 
that  it  is  either  a  Florentine  or  an  Umbrian  picture. 
Critics  have  attributed  it  to  Sebastiano,  to  Pon- 
tormo,  to  Giulio  Romano.     It  is  not  wonderful  in 
any  way.     On  the  contrary,  it  is  rather  heavy,  both 
mentally  and  technically. 

1509.  Raphael.    (Attributed  to.)     Apollo  and  Marsyas. 
A  picture  that  almost  any  one  of  half  a  dozen 
painters  in  the  Umbrian  country  might  have  done. 
It  does  not  speak  for  Raphael  so  much  as  for  his 
teachers   and  elders — say  Perugino.     And  yet  it 
might  be  by  Manni  or  even  Aspertini.     It  is  a 
graceful  enough  composition  with  a  good  Umbrian 
landscape. 


REMBRANDT  103 

Rembrandt  van  Ryn.  Angel  Raphael  Leaving 
Tobias.  What  a  beautiful  envelope  of  air  and 
shadow  in  which  the  figures  are  happily  placed! 
How  well  done  the  old  man  kneeling,  the  frightened 
figures  at  the  door,  the  dog,  the  setting  of  the  house ! 
Also  the  flying  angel,  with  his  lovely  hair  and 
wings!  The  picture  is  indeed  charming  and  quite 
worthy  of  Rembrandt  for  all  the  hard  drawing  of 
the  hands  and  legs.  It  has  some  look  of  Bol 
about  it,  but  it  is  probably  a  genuine  enough  Rem- 
brandt, done  in  his  grey-golden  period. 

The  Good  Samaritan.  This  picture  was  writ- 
ten about  by  Fromentin,  some  years  ago,  at  some 
length  and  with  much  enthusiasm.  The  present 
generation  looks  at  it  with  perhaps  less  admiration. 
This  may  be  due  to  less  certainty  as  to  who  did 
the  picture.  It  is  likely  a  picture  in  which  Eeck- 
hout  had  a  hand.  Compare  it  with  the  Eeckhout 
across  the  gallery  (No.  2364).  Begin  with  the 
similarity  of  light,  the  central  spot  of  white,  the 
likeness  of  the  man  with  the  turban  in  both  pic- 
tures, the  repeated  red  cap,  the  drawing  of  the 
hands,  sleeves,  coats.  They  are  not  identical,  but 
are  they  not  so  similar  as  to  point  to  a  possibility? 
They  were  done  in  point  of  time  some  years  apart, 
for  the  No.  2364  is  much  smoother  work.  But  all 
that  Fromentin  said  about  this  picture,  its  piteous 
subject  and  the  pathos  of  it  is  quite  true.  It  is  a 
picture  of  merit.  The  distribution  of  shadow  is  dis- 
turbing, and  no  one  knows  precisely  whence  comes 
the  light.  The  colour  is  Rembrandtesque  and  rich. 

— St.  Matthew.  It  does  not  follow  that  every 
loaded  and  thumbed  canvas  with  foxy  colouring 
is  a  late  Rembrandt.  His  pupils  stumbled  and 


104  THE  LOUVRE 

boggled  with  a  loaded  brush  more  than  he.  They 
were  imitating  his  failures  as  well  as  his  successes. 
The  angel  in  this  picture  is  the  same  as  you  may 
see  in  Bol's  picture  in  the  Amsterdam  Gallery 
(No.  552)  and  also  in  the  Rembrandt  (which  is  by 
Bol)  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  (No.  828).  This  model 
was  continually  used  by  Bol,  but  that  does  not 
conclusively  prove  that  he  painted  this  picture. 
It  is  probably  a  studio  picture,  like  No.  2555,  in 
which  Bol  or  Eeckhout  may  have  had  a  hand. 
Other  painters — Rubens,  Raphael,  Bellini — were 
helped  by  pupils  and  sent  out  composite  works 
under  their  names  and  often  signed  them  in  the 
bargain.  Why  not  Rembrandt?  Yet  how  often  in 
the  long  lists  of  Rembrandts  in  public  galleries  do 
you  find  one  assigned  to  the  school? 

1539.   Pilgrims  at   Emmaus.     Of   much    emotional 

feeling  and  great  pathos.  It  is  a  poor,  mean- 
looking  Amsterdam  Jew  who  figures  as  the  Christ. 
The  face  is  transfigured  by  suffering,  has  sad 
eyes  and  blackened  lips,  and  speaks  the  Christ  of 
the  tomb.  The  phosphorescent  halo  of  death  is 
about  the  head  and  a  suggestion  of  the  tomb  is 
given  in  the  architecture  at  the  back.  The  wonder 
of  the  disciples  as  they  recognise  the  One  who  is 
breaking  bread  is  well  given  in  facial  looks,  up- 
raised hands,  and  shrinking  bodies.  Even  the  boy 
who  is  bringing  in  a  dish  has  a  frightened  air.  The 
figures  are  very  well  set  in  their  aerial  envelope. 
What  an  envelope  it  is,  with  the  deep,  mysterious 
recess  at  the  back!  WThat  luminous  shadows  are 
here!  And  how  the  table,  chairs,  and  dishes  are 
drawn!  More  than  that  it  is  not  technically  re- 
markable. It  has  little  brilliancy  of  colour  and 
carries  largely  by  its  emotional  significance. 


REMBRANDT  105 

2540 1  Philosophers   in   Meditation.     Small   pictures 

2541 J  over  which,  in  the  past,  there  has  been  some  spill- 
ing of  good  printer's  ink  with  no  very  marked  re- 
sults. The  pictures  are  not  wonderful.  In  fact, 
one  may  be  heretical  enough  to  think  that  some  one 
like  Salomon  Koninck  or  Dou  might  have  painted 
them.  It  is  not  affirmed  that  either  of  them  did, 
but  it  may  be  reasserted  that  there  is  nothing 
wonderful  about  the  pictures,  whoever  did  them; 
and  further  that  there  is  no  strong  indication  of 
Rembrandt  having  done  them.  He  was  not  given 
to  the  painting  of  such  small  material. 

2542.  -    —  The  Carpenter's  Shop.     And  when,  pray,  did 
Rembrandt  come  down  to  doing  a  pretty,  Italian- 
faced  Madonna  like  this,  seated  in  an  interior  that 
has  a  window  reminding  one  of  the  windows  by 
Adriaan  van  Ostade?     It  is  a  very  good  picture, 
but  why  Rembrandt?     See  the  Van  Ostade  across 
the  room  (No.  2498),  for  a  similar  theme  done  in  a 
similar  manner,  though  not  so  well  done.     Ostade 
repeated  the  theme  again  and  again.     See  another 
example  in  one  of  the  side  cabinets  (No  2507). 
One  can  form  his  own  conclusions. 

2543.  -    —  Venus  and  Love.     The  learned  director  of  the 
Berlin  Gallery  is  quoted  in  the  catalogue  as  recog- 
nising in  this  picture  the  likeness  of  Hendrickje 
Stoffels  and  her  daughter  Cornelia,  but  one  would 
like  to  know  when,  where,  and  how  the  present 
generation  became  acquainted  with  her  features 
or  those  of  her  daughter.     In  the  Berlin  Gallery 
she  is  recognised  as  the  model  of  No.  828B,  quite  a 
different  portrait  from  the  person  in  No.  2547  here 
in  the  Louvre,  which  is  also  asserted  with  equal  posi- 
tiveness  to  be  a  likeness  of  the  unfortunate  Hen- 


106  THE  LOUVRE 

drickje.  Now  here  in  No.  2543  we  have  still  an- 
other likeness  of  her.  Once  more  we  catch  a  glimpse 
of  how  history  is  made,  and  begin  to  understand 
why  it  requires  rewriting  every  ten  years  to  keep 
it  up  to  date.  As  for  the  picture  itself  (that  is,  No. 
2543),  it  is  good  in  colour  and  nice  in  the  little 
Cupid.  With  a  great  many  things  about  it  that 
do  not  suggest  Rembrandt,  as,  for  example,  the 
subject,  the  types,  the  hands  (especially  those  of 
the  Cupid),  the  dark  shadows,  and,  above  all,  the 
trail  of  the  brush.  Compare  it  with  the  handling 
of  the  Flayed  Ox  (No.  2548).  It  seems  a  very  good 
picture  that  belongs  perhaps  nearer  to  Bernaert 
Fabritius  than  any  one  else.  See  the  notes  on  the 
Rembrandts  at  Berlin  and  at  The  Hague. 

2544.    Portrait    of   an   Old  Man.     A   portrait   of  no 

great  power  or  charm,  no  spontaneity  or  verve. 
Even  the  loaded  forehead  is  done  with  great  care 
and  timidity.     It  is  rather  tame  all  through,  as 
though  the  work  of  a  copyist  rather  than  the  master. 
It  originally  had  a  grey  tone  but  is  now  yellow 
with  varnish. 

2545.  -    —Portrait  of  a   Young  Man.     To  be  accepted 
with  a  grain  of  salt.     There  is  a  weakness  about 
the  face  and  a  blackness  of  the  shadows  that  are 
not  Rembrandt's.     Besides,  the  surface  is  smooth 
for  Rembrandt's  golden  period.     It  is  possibly  a 
school  work. 

2546.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     Said  by  Michel  (quoted 

in  the  catalogue)  to  be  a  repetition  or  copy  of  the 
portrait  at  Cassel.     It  is  neither  better  nor  worse 
than  the  Cassel  picture,  and  neither  of  them  is  a 
thing  of  great  pith  or  moment  in  art.     But  this  is 
not  a  copy.     It  is  the  original  work  of  some  Rem- 
brandt follower. 


REMBRANDT  107 

2547.   Portrait  of  a  Woman.    Again  we  have  the  as- 
sertion that  this  is  the  portrait  of  Hendrickje  Stof- 
fels.     See  the  note  to  No.  2543.     The  picture  has 
much  fine  colour  of  a  golden  tone,   transparent 
shadows,  and  some  very  good  modelling.     It  must 
be  taken  for  a  Rembrandt  of  the  late  golden  period, 
though  it  does  not  in  every  way  agree  with  his  work 
at  that  time.     It  is  handsomely  done,  with  good 
drawing,  especially  in  the  eyes  and  the  turn  of  the 
cheeks  and  chin,  and  in  good  pervasive  light.   The 
figure  protrudes  a  bit  and  does  not  keep  within  its 
envelope  as  it  should.    It  is  a  late  work,  and  a 
little  after  the  manner  of  the  Young  Woman  with  a 
Pink,  at  Cassel  (No.  238).    It  has  been  cleaned  too 
much.     The  cap  at  the  top  and  the  little  red  lines 
at  the  side  of  it  seem  to  have  been  painted  in  after- 
ward. 

2548.   A  Flayed  Ox.     This  is  a  tour  de  force,  done  for 

the  pure  love  of  manipulating  pigment  and  getting 
a  colour  effect.     Several  of  the  old  Dutch  painters 
tried  the  same  subject,  but  none  arrived  so  success- 
fully as  Rembrandt.     It  is  a  marvellous  piece  of 
painting  in  which  the  fatty  quality  of  the  pigment 
seems  to  reproduce  in  modelling  the  fat  of  the  beef 
itself.     It  is  largely  painted  with  a  palette-knife  or 
a  thumb,  and  is  not  kneaded  and  amended  but  hit 
the  first  time.    This  was  in  1655,  when  we  are  given 
to  understand  his  handling  was  heavy,  as  account- 
ing for  works  of  a  heavy  nature  put  down  to  his 
name.   There  is  here  not  the  slightest  sign  of  failure 
or  heaviness  in  the  work.     It  is  certainty  itself. 
What  a  piece  of  colour!    And  what  a  luminous 
shadowed  background!    It  is  a  painter's  picture 
and  superb. 


108  THE  LOUVRE 

2549.   A    Woman    Bathing.     Once   more   with    this 

picture  we  have  the  allegation  that  it  is  a  likeness 
of  Hendrickje  Stoffels  (see  the  note  to  No.  2543), 
with  a  eulogy  on  the  loveliness  of  the  drawing  by 
Doctor  Bode.  As  for  its  being  Hendrickje  Stoffels, 
it  is  much  more  likely  to  be  a  plain  studio  model 
employed  by  Rembrandt  and  his  pupils,  or  by 
others.  In  fact,  one  might  see  the  same  model  in 
this  room  in  the  picture  put  down  to  Drost  (No. 
2559 A).  It  is  the  same  type,  varied  in  the  paint- 
ing by  the  different  views  of  the  two  painters. 
The  type  appears  again  in  the  Woman  Bathing 
(No.  54)  in  the  National  Gallery,  London.  As 
for  the  drawing,  the  learned  doctor  is  quite  right. 
It  is  quite  a  remarkable  figure,  if  a  little  coarse. 
One  cannot  feel  so  sure  that  Rembrandt  did  the 
long-fingered  hands  and  the  rather  black  shadows. 
Nor  can  one  be  so  sure,  as  some  others,  that  Rem- 
brandt always  did  the  whole  of  his  pictures  and 
without  the  help  of  his  pupils.  This  picture  is  not 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  certain  pictures  attributed 
to  Rembrandt,  such  as  the  Woman  Bathing,  in  the 
National  Gallery  (No.  54),  a  picture  in  reality 
painted  by  Eeckhout.  It  is  easier  to  see  Eeckhout 
in  the  Louvre  picture  than  it  is  to  see  Rembrandt. 
Across  the  room  is  an  Eeckhout  (No.  2364),  with 
a  robe  about  the  seated  figure  that  will  match  the 
robe  of  this  bathing  woman  very  well.  It  is  prac- 
tically the  same  robe,  and  appears  again  in  the 
London  picture.  This  picture  also  agrees  very 
well  with  the  Good  Samaritan  (No.  2537),  which 
is  probably  an  Eeckhout  also.  But  Eeckhout  or 
Rembrandt,  it  is  a  fine  piece  of  work.  To  be  very 
frank,  it  is  almost  too  fine  in  drawing  for  Eeck- 
hout, and  not  fine  enough  for  Rembrandt,  not 


REMBRANDT  109 

luminous  enough  or  powerful  enough,  and  too  hard 
in  the  drawing  and  the  surface.  The  small  figure 
(No.  2550)  is  probably  by  the  same  hand  that  did 
this  No.  2549. 

2551.  -  — Portrait  of  a  Man.  The  face  has  no  great 
strength  to  it,  though  well  enough  done.  The  hair, 
cap,  and  coat  are  somewhat  mauled  and  tortured, 
and  the  shadows  are  rather  dark.  It  is  probably 
some  pupil's  performance  or  a  shop  piece  done  in 
the  Rembrandt  shop.  Possibly  by  the  painter  of 
No.  2545. 

2553.    Portrait    of   the   Painter.     A    straightforward 

portrait,  with  nothing  either  very  good  or  very  bad 
about  it.     The  chain  is  overloaded  with  pigment. 
The  colour  is  turning  to  gold,  though  it  has  been 
helped  somewhat  in  this  case  by  much  oil    and 
varnish.    The  picture  is  of  about  the  same  quality 
as  Nos.  2552  and  2554.     They  are  none  of  them 
of  pronounced  Rembrandt  origin. 

2554.  -    — Portrait  of  the  Painter.     Again  there  is  noth- 
ing remarkable  about  this  portrait  of  the  painter. 
It  is  not  even  spirited,  and  if  it  could  be  seen  close 
at  hand  it  might  prove  merely  a  pupil's  work,  or  an 
old  copy. 

2541A.  A  Hermit  Reading.    This  picture  is  probably 

not  by  Rembrandt,  but  possibly  by  Dou  or  some 
one  of  his  ilk.  Not  to  go  out  of  the  Louvre  for 
illustration,  examine  Dou  at  second  hand  in  the 
work  of  his  imitator,  Brekelenkam,  in  his  picture 
(No.  2336),  A  Monk  Reading.  It  is  among  the 
Dutch  pictures  in  one  of  the  small  side  cabinets. 
The  subject  is  not  only  similar,  but  notice,  if  you 
will,  the  same  bend  forward  of  the  head,  the  same 
drawing  of  the  skull,  the  same  drawing  of  the  hands 


110  THE  LOUVRE 

with  an  emphasis  upon  the  knuckles,  the  same 
scheme  of  light.  See  also  the  Dous  like  Nos.  2354 
and  2357  in  the  side  cabinets,  or  No.  2356  across  the 
room.  The  Dou  in  the  Wallace  Collection,  Lon- 
don (No.  1771),  A  Hermit  at  Prayer,  shows  a 
similar  model  and  a  similar  drawing  of  the  hands. 
The  same  subject  is  seen  again  in  the  Amsterdam 
Museum  (No.  797),  and  in  the  Prado,  Madrid, 
(No.  2078).  It  was  a  favourite  theme  of  Dou's. 
This  Hermit  in  the  Louvre  is  a  very  good  little  pic- 
ture, but  not  in  Rembrandt's  style.  The  modelling 
and  handling  are  quite  different  from  his  work. 

2555.    Rembrandt  in  Advanced  Years.     This  is  sup- 

*  posed  to  be  Rembrandt  as  an  old  man.  The  por- 
trait is  signed  and  dated  1660,  and  therefore  be- 
longs to  about  the  same  year  as  the  portrait  of 
Rembrandt  in  the  National  Gallery,  London  (No. 
221).  The  question  at  once  comes  up,  could  or 
did  Rembrandt  see  himself  in  two  different  ways 
in  that  year?  There  is  small  doubt  that  both 
portraits  were  intended  for  the  same  character 
(supposed  to  be  Rembrandt),  but  how  could  a 
man  looking  at  himself  in  a  mirror  see  himself 
as  two  different  men?  In  this  Louvre  portrait  he 
has  an  apish  face,  a  badly  spread  nose,  a  right 
eye  out  of  drawing,  a  double  chin  badly  drawn, 
a  mouth  askew,  a  neck  that  is  not  believable,  and 
indicated  hands  under  a  blackish  shadow.  The 
total  result  is  quite  different  from  the  London  pic- 
ture— so  different  that  we  question  if  Rembrandt 
(or  any  one  else)  did  both  pictures.  The  shadows 
in  this  Louvre  picture  are  blackish  all  through, 
the  handling  heavy,  save  in  the  white  cap ;  but  the 
figure  has  envelope  and  setting,  and  from  across 
the  gallery  it  looks  convincing  in  its  tonal  effect. 


RIBERA,  JOSEF  111 

One  returns  to  it,  however,  with  the  feeling  that 
this  is  by  some  member  of  the  school,  using  the 
master  or  some  person  of  this  face  as  a  model. 
It  is  only  by  such  a  hypothesis  that  one  can  ac- 
count for  the  twenty-odd  portraits  of  Rembrandt, 
each  one  looking  so  different  from  the  others.  No 
painter  could  do  himself  twenty  times,  with  twenty 
points  of  view,  in  twenty  ways.  The  tendency  of 
every  painter  is  not  to  vary,  but  to  repeat  a  for- 
mula. That  is  the  one  thing  that  enables  critics 
and  connoisseurs  to  attribute  pictures  with  any 
certainty.  Moreover,  repetition  was  peculiar  to 
Rembrandt.  His  power,  though  penetrating,  was 
of  a  limited  range.  He  repeated  himself  again  and 
again,  more  frequently,  perhaps,  than  did  Rubens, 
or  Titian,  or  Raphael. 

2555A.   Supper  at  Emmaus.     How  is  it  possible  to 

put  this  Supper  at  Emmaus  down  to  the  same  hand 
that  did  the  similar  subject  in  No.  2539?  This  work 
(No.  2555 A)  belongs  possibly  to  Bernaert  Fabritius. 
It  agrees  with  his  pictures  at  Darmstadt,  and  dis- 
agrees with  Rembrandt's  pictures  anywhere  and 
everywhere. 

1448.  Reni,  Guide.  Magdalen.  One  of  Guide's  pretty 
Magdalens  with  a  pulpy  face,  boneless  hands,  and 
newly  washed  and  perfumed  hair.  Look  at  the 
weak  drawing  of  the  chin  and  neck.  This  is  a 
little  sweeter  than  usual  for  Guido,  and  looks  as 
though  it  might  be  an  old  copy. 

1725.    Ribera,  Josef.     (Lo  Spagnoletto).     The  Club- 
*       footed  Man.     Something  in  the  category  of  Velas- 
quez's  dwarfs   that,   indeed,   might   pass   for   an 
early    Velasquez    with    many   people.     An   excel- 
lent piece  of  characterisation  and  a  good  piece  of 


112  THE  LOUVRE 

painting.  How  well  the  head  is  drawn  and  the 
brown  clothes  painted!  And  what  excellence  of 
shadowed  colour!  The  sky  and  landscape  are  fine. 
It  is  a  notable  Ribera.  (In  the  La  Caze  Collec- 
tion.) 

1722.    The  Entombment.     A  blackish  picture  with 

some  large  grace  in  the  arms  and  legs  of  the  dead 
figure.  A  rather  good  Ribera  in  its  drawing. 

1482.    Rosselli,      Cosimo.      Madonna    in    Glory.       The 

picture  is  attributed  to  Rosselli,  but  the  angels 
indicate  Botticini,  and  the  St.  Mary  of  Egypt  at 
the  left,  with  the  long,  enveloping  hair,  is  after 
Lorenzo  di  Credi.  It  is  a  graceful  oval  composi- 
tion, rather  violent  in  colour,  and  not  particularly 
well  done.  The  painter  of  it  was  some  Floren- 
tine eclectic,  who  helped  himself  to  whatever 
was  good  in  the  art  of  his  contemporaries,  and 
yet  made  a  poor  combination  of  those  qualities,  as 
usually  happens  to  imitators  and  eclectics. 

2075.    Rubens,  Peter  Paul.     The  Flight  of  Lot.    It  is 

little  more  than  a  finished  study,  but  it  has  the 
merit  of  being  intact,  and  with  no  repainting  of 
any  importance  upon  it.  The  composition  is 
processional,  and  gives  the  sense  of  movement,  of 
flight.  The  drawing  is  flawless,  and  the  colour  is 
excellent.  Done  in  1625,  it  is  a  little  different  in 
its  brush-work  from  his  earlier  style.  Notice  the 
beauty  of  the  two  angels,  the  depth  of  shadow 
about  the  finely  drawn  architecture,  the  fine  sug- 
gestion of  landscape.  Carry  the  landscape  in 
your  eye  to  No.  2118  and  notice  the  difference. 

2077.   Adoration    of    Magi.     Done    for    a    Brussels 

church  about  1627  and  a  repetition  of  a  theme 


RUBENS  113 

Rubens  did  several  times,  notably  in  the  large 
panel  in  the  Antwerp  Gallery.  This  picture  smacks 
of  the  workshop,  and  was  undoubtedly  done  in 
large  part  by  pupils.  The  flesh  now  lacks  the 
Rubens  tang,  and  the  robes  do  not  show  his  colour 
quality.  Notice  the  coarse,  cheap  way  in  which 
the  hair  and  beards  are  done. 

The  Madonna.     The  Madonna  is  surrounded 

by  a  throng  of  putti,  gracefully  arranged,  and  drawn 
with  much  skill.  It  has  good  colour  and  still 
shows  the  brush-work  of  Rubens.  It  is  a  fairly 
good  picture  to  appeal  to  if  there  is  ever  any  doubt 
about  this  painter's  early  handling.  His  later  han- 
dling is  to  be  studied  in  the  Medicis  Series,  specifi- 
cally in  No.  2099. 

— A  Tourney.  The  landscape  alone  indicates 
that  it  is  not  Rubens's  work,  even  if  the  drawing 
in  the  foreground  figures  did  not  confirm  such  an 
impression.  There  is  a  fine  golden  tone  to  this 
picture,  and  it  is  not  a  bad  work,  but  some  Rubens 
follower  did  it  and  some  restorer  repainted  it.  It 
is  thought  by  writers  on  art  to  be  entirely  by 
Rubens's  hand.  Compare  it  with  the  Flight  of 
Lot  (No.  2075),  to  see  how  little  they  agree  with 
each  other — that  is,  the  pictures,  not  the  writers  on 
art. 

Madonna  Amidst  Flowers.     The  flowers  were 

done  apparently  by  Brueghel,  and  the  Madonna 
is  said  to  be  by  Rubens,  though  it  has  only  a  super- 
ficial resemblance  to  his  work.  It  is  well  enough 
done,  but  it  is  not  done  in  a  Rubens  way.  Look  at 
the  hands,  the  hair,  the  colour.  It  is  probably 
some  school  piece,  though  documentary  evidence 
points  to  Rubens  as  the  painter. 


114  THE  LOUVRE 

2082.   Christ   on    the   Cross.     A   large   and   simple 

pyramidal  composition,  with  some  feeling  and 
good  drawing.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  not,  perhaps, 
so  refined  or  noble  as  the  Christ  on  the  Cross,  at 
Munich  (No.  748),  but  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
realistic  truth  about  it.  The  Magdalen  in  her 
gold-hued  silk  is  at  once  pitiful  and  beautiful  and 
the  Madonna  is  majestic.  Though  too  square 
in  form,  the  John  is  effective  as  colour — the  red 
being  dominant.  The  landscape  is  light  except  in 
the  sky,  where  Rubens  repeats  the  note  of  blood- 
red  in  the  red  of  the  moon  as  he  repeats  the  blue 
of  the  robe  of  the  Madonna  in  the  blue  of  the  dis- 
tant hills.  Early  work,  done  in  1615,  with  the 
help  of  pupils. 

2084.  -  —Thomyris  and  Cyrus.  A  version,  with  varia- 
tions, of  a  picture  said  to  be  in  the  Darnley  Collec- 
tion, England.  The  Louvre  picture  is  later  and 
has  been  restored  in  the  faces  and  hands  of  the 
women.  Originally  it  may  have  been  a  good 
Rubens,  but  there  are  indications  that  the  work  was 
helped  out  by  pupils,  if  indeed  they  did  not  do 
the  greater  part  of  it.  Notice  the  frail  heads  and 
necks,  the  bad  hands. 

2111.    Portrait    of    Baron    de    Vicq.     A    substantial 

*      portrait  done  without  much  artistic  feeling.     It 

was  perfunctorily  executed  for  Baron  de  Vicq  in 
recognition  of  his  services  in  securing  for  the  painter 
the  Marie  de  Medicis  Series  of  paintings  now  in  the 
Louvre.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  cost  Rubens 
anything,  either  in  emotional  feeling  or  technical 
labour,  but  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  very  good  portrait. 

2112.    Portrait  of  Elizabeth  of  France.     In  reality  a 

portrait  of  Anne  of  Austria,  wife  of  Louis  XIII. 


RUBENS  115 

It  is  a  very  delicately  executed  portrait  and  is 
almost  fragile  in  its  thinness.  Notice  the  small 
hands.  The  painting  is  quite  as  thin,  quite  as 
small.  A  decorative  picture  but  not  a  strong 
one.  It  has  the  appearance  of  a  careful  and  rather 
pretty  copy.  A  varied  version  is  in  the  Prado  at 
Madrid. 

2108.  -  —Portrait  of  Marie  de  Medicis  as  Bellona.  This 
was  something  done  to  please  the  Queen  rather 
than  the  painter.  It  is  a  bit  bombastic  in  its  pose, 
its  heaped-up  armour,  its  angels.  It  is  all  very  clev- 
erly done,  but  it  is  not  satisfying.  It  is  splendour 
for  splendour's  sake  and  not  as  an  incident  of  an 
event  or  a  reign.  The  robes  are  a  bit  uneasy,  but 
how  beautifully  they  are  painted!  And  they  were 
probably  done,  too,  not  by  Rubens,  but  by  his 
assistants. 

2107  1  Portraits  of  Jeanne  d'Autriche  and  Francois 

2106  1  de  Medicis.  In  any  other  gallery  these  portraits 
might  cut  quite  a  figure,  but  with  several  other 
Rubens  portraits  and  the  many  brilliant  pictures 
of  the  Medicis  Series  near  at  hand  they  seem  per- 
functory and  a  little  tame.  The  lady's  portrait 
seems  the  better.  They  were  painted  for  the  gal- 
lery of  the  Luxembourg. 

2113.  Helene    Fourment    and  Children.     This    is    a 

**  beautiful  poetic  canvas  done  with  much  feeling 
and  tenderness.  In  the  design  and  colour  it  is 
entirely  right,  though  the  work  was  never  pushed 
beyond  the  first  inspiration  and  was  never  com- 
pleted except  in  the  faces.  The  background  and 
the  garments  are  merely  rubbed  in  with  sepia.  But 
it  was  carried  far  enough.  Just  as  it  stands,  it  is 
tender  but  spirited,  romantic  but  true,  indicative 


116  THE  LOUVRE 

of  things  not  seen,  but  sure  as  regards  what  is 
seen.  A  charming  work  that  the  student  should 
study  closely  in  the  hair,  the  hats,  the  dresses  for 
Rubens's  handling  in  1636— his  late  manner.  His 
hand  never  failed;  it  was  always  sure  and  right. 
Notice  the  delicate  shadow  under  the  hat,  the 
plume,  the  boy's  head  and  cap,  the  beautiful  whites. 

2114.    Portrait  of  a  Lady.     It  is  probably  a  portrait 

of  Suzanne  Fourment,  sister  of  Helene,  who  ap- 
pears as  a  model  in  No.  2093  of  the  Medicis  Series, 
and  also  in  the  Chapeau  de  Foil  (No.  852),  National 
Gallery,  London.     This  portrait  looks  very  smooth 
and  a  trifle  sweet  for  Rubens  in,  say,  1624,  but  there 
is  little  doubt  that  he  did  it.     The  handling  is  his. 

2115.   The  Kermesse.     This  is  a  picture  that  has  life, 

bustle,  and  movement  about  it.     It  is  not  a  bad 
picture  by  any  means,  but  is  it  by  Rubens?    There 
is  small  indication  in  the  types,  the  colour,  the 
drawing,    the   composition,   the   landscape   of  his 
handiwork.     Notice   the  way  the  high  lights  are 
plastered  on  the  foreheads  and  the  hair;   and  notice 
the  loose  drawing  everywhere,  particularly  in  the 
hands.     Was  Rubens  such  a  poor  draughtsman  as 
that?    Compare  this  work  piece  by  piece,  article  by 
article,  with  No.  2075,  and  you  will  find  much 
that  cannot  be  reconciled  except  by  putting  down 
this  Kermesse  picture  as  a  Rubens  school  piece. 
In  spite  of  all  the  rhapsodies  written  about  it,  it 
possibly  belongs  among  the  works  of  some  follower 
of  the  master.     Again  let  it  be  said  that  it  is  by  no 
means  a  bad  work.     The  landscape  is  really  very 
fine — it  has  great  depth,  sweep,  and  a  good  sky. 
But  the  work  is  probably  that  of  some  one  follower 
or  assistant  of  Rubens,  who  later  on  became  more 


RUBENS  117 

careless  than  in  this  picture,  and  then  did  such 
work  as  the  Madonna  with  St.  George  (No.  67) 
and  the  landscape  (No.  66),  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, London,  the  Rainbow  Landscape  in  the 
Wallace  Collection  (No.  62),  the  large  landscape 
at  Brussels  (No.  391),  and  many  other  pictures, 
chiefly  landscapes,  now  in  European  galleries  under 
the  name  of  Rubens.  The  true  Rubens  landscape, 
as  pointed  out  elsewhere,  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Vienna 
Gallery  (No.  869).  But  compare  this  Kermesse 
picture  here  in  the  Louvre  with  the  Flight  of  Lot 
(No.  2075)  both  as  regards  the  figures  and  the 
landscape.  Are  they  both  by  the  same  hand? 
The  Kermesse  is  supposed  to  be  ten  years  later  than 
the  Flight  of  Lot,  and  Rubens's  handling  doubt- 
less changed  and  loosened  somewhat  during  that 
time,  but  it  did  not  fail  or  grow  careless  or  blunder 
at  any  time  in  his  career. 

2118.  -  — Landscape.  The  figures  and  sheep  are  cer- 
tainly not  by  Rubens,  and  it  may  be  inferred  from 
the  sky  and  the  distance  that  his  brush  has  not 
touched  either  of  them.  This  is  the  same  hand  that 
did  the  large  Kermesse  picture  (No.  2115),  only  now 
grown  very  careless,  blackish  in  shadows,  and  spotty 
in  lights.  It  is  some  follower  of  Rubens  with 
mannerisms  of  his  own.  He  is  seen  again  at  the 
National  Gallery,  London  (No.  157). 

2085 1  -  —  The  Medids  Series.  This  series  of  pictures 
2109]  represents,  allegorically  and  otherwise,  the  life  of 
Marie  de  Medicis  or  at  least  the  chief  features  of 
it.  The  pictures  were  painted  by  Rubens  and  his 
pupils,  during  a  period  of  four  years  (1622-1625), 
for  the  Palace  of  the  Luxembourg.  When  they 
hung  in  the  long,  narrow  gallery  of  the  Louvre, 


118  THE  LOUVRE 

where  they  could  not  be  seen  adequately,  it  was 
quite  the  fashion  to  abuse  them  and  speak  of 
them  as  "  those  big,  bad  Rubenses,  painted  by  his 
pupils."  A  few  years  ago  the  pictures  were  given 
their  present  setting,  and  immediately  there  was 
a  change  of  opinion  about  them.  Placed  in  a  room 
where  their  united  decorative  splendour  could  be 
seen,  their  gorgeous  quality  instantly  became  ap- 
parent. The  idea  that  the  pictures  were  done 
wholly  by  his  pupils  never  was  quite  correct  and 
never  had  too  much  foundation  in  fact.  Ru- 
bens's  sketches  for  these  pictures  are  now  in  the 
Munich  Gallery  and  at  the  Hermitage,  St.  Peters- 
burg. Some  of  the  finished  pictures  speak  for  his 
hand  and  brush,  helped  out,  in  portions,  by  pupils, 
as  was  the  case  with  Raphael  and  other  painters. 
These  pictures  show  the  middle-period  style  and 
method  of  Rubens  to  great  advantage.  The  pre- 
vailing colour  notes  of  the  series  are  red  and  gold, 
relieved  by  greens,  greys,  and  blues.  The  light 
is  wide-spread  and  with  no  pronounced  shadow 
masses  except  in  the  Coronation  picture  and  a  night 
scene.  The  whole  series  is  somewhat  restored. 

2085.  -  —The  Destiny  of  Marie  de  Medicis.  This  picture 
*  shows  in  the  Fates  three  commanding  figures  of 
great  grace  and  beauty.  Notice  how  the  figures, 
placed  on  a  narrow,  upright  canvas,  are  woven  to- 
gether in  the  lines — the  Jupiter  above  being  sup- 
plemented diagonally  by  the  large  Fate  at  his 
feet  and  the  other  two  Fates  repeating  this  diagonal 
line.  The  colour  is  very  effective,  especially  in 
the  robes  of  Jupiter  at  the  top.  How  wonderful 
the  drawing  in  all  the  figures! 

2088.  -  —Henry  IV  Receiving  the  Portrait  of  Marie  de 
*  Medicis.  With  fine  types  of  Jupiter  and  Juno  up 


RUBENS  119 

above,  and  Juno's  peacocks  for  colour-splendour. 
An  excellent  portrait  of  the  King  standing  lost  in 
admiration  before  the  portrait.  The  composition 
is  a  diagonal  from  Jupiter  and  Juno  down  to  the 
King  and  his  attendant.  Notice  the  graceful  angel 
holding  the  frame,  the  lovely  cupids  below  with 
the  helmet  and  shield,  and  the  outstretched  land- 
scape at  the  back.  Somewhat  cleaned  and  re- 
painted, it  still  remains  one  of  the  fine  pictures  of 
the  series.  What  beautiful  colour!  What  armour! 
What  golden  robes! 

Landing   of   Marie    de  Medicis  at  Marseilles. 

This  picture  is  a  scheme  of  colour  rather  than  an 
effectively  drawn  and  planned  composition.  The 
fine  nude  figures  in  the  water  rather  detract  from 
Marie  de  Medicis  above  and  the  ethereal  Victory 
over  her  head.  There  is  some  glitter  of  silks  and 
brocades,  but  perhaps  the  best  part  of  the  picture 
is  the  back  of  the  naiad  at  the  extreme  right. 
These  naiads  form  one  section  of  the  picture  which 
stops  with  the  red  cloth  of  the  landing  plank.  The 
figures  of  the  Queen  and  her  attendants  form  the 
second  section,  and  the  angel,  canopy,  and  archi- 
tecture the  third  section.  But  they  are  not  well 
held  together — not  even  by  colour. 

—Birth  of  Louis  XIII  at  Fontainebleau.  This  is 
a  superb  composition,  with  the  Queen  in  the  centre 
surrounded  by  deities  and  attendants — a  grandly 
beautiful  figure  in  her  silken  garments.  Even  the 
tender  look  of  the  mother  and  her  tired  lean-back 
in  her  chair  are  well  done  for  a  decorative  com- 
position, and  there  are  realistic  touches  here  and 
there — in  the  dress,  the  hands,  the  feet — that  are 
effective.  What  splendid  types  surround  her!  No- 


120  THE  LOUVRE 

tice  the  Victory,  with  the  beautifully  painted  hair, 
holding  the  red  curtain  at  the  top;  the  nymph 
with  the  golden  dress  at  the  left;  the  masculine 
figure  holding  the  child.  What  silks  and  stuffs 
and  glittering  textures!  There  is  a  diagonal  line 
indicated  in  the  red  cloth  and  repeated  in  the  Apollo 
of  the  sky  that  gives  snap  and  life  to  the  group. 

2094.    Coronation  of  Marie  de  Medicis.     A  gorgeous 

*  processional  piece  that  David  liked  so  much  that 
he  followed  it  in  his  Coronation  of  the  Empress 
Josephine,  to  be  seen  in  another  room  in  the 
Louvre.  Those  who  are  downcast  by  the  gross- 
ness  and  coarseness  of  the  Rubens  type  should  here 
study  the  heads  of  the  Princess  of  Conti,  the 
Duchess  of  Montpensier,  and  the  attendant  next 
her  holding  the  Queen's  train.  What  wonderful 
heads!  What  splendid  types!  How  the  heads  fit 
on  the  necks  and  are  in  the  centre  of  their  ruffs! 
Look  at  the  row  of  women's  heads — all  portraits, 
no  doubt — at  the  left.  They  have  the  same  won- 
derful setting  of  the  heads  and  necks,  with  ruffs 
that  travel  around  and  back  of  the  necks.  The 
red  robes  are  a  little  disturbing,  perhaps,  as  com- 
pared with  the  garments  of  the  gorgeous  individual 
in  the  centre  with  his  back  to  us.  The  goddesses 
of  prosperity  in  the  air  are  perhaps  a  little  over- 
done, and  the  King  in  his  box  in  the  background 
is  perhaps  underdone.  None  of  the  background 
is  above  criticism,  but  some  of  the  figures  in  the 
foreground  are  the  best  in  the  whole  series. 

2097.    The   Progress    of  Marie  de  Medicis   to  Pont- 

de-Ce.  The  colour  scheme  of  this  picture  seems  a 
little  cool  for  the  rest  of  the  series.  The  Queen, 
radiant  and  triumphant,  is  riding  her  horse  with 


RUBENS  121 

much  dignity,  the  blue  of  her  nodding  plumes 
being  repeated  in  the  flying  figure  and  in  the  sky. 
The  picture  apparently  shows  much  school  work 
— in  the  figure  behind  the  horse,  in  the  figures  of 
the  sky,  and  in  the  landscape.  The  colour,  though 
fine  in  itself,  is  hardly  in  keeping  with  that  of  the 
other  pictures  of  the  series. 

2099.  -  —  The  Prosperity  of  the  Regency.  With  fine 
figures  of  nymphs  in  gorgeous  garments  at  the 
right,  but  the  canvas  as  a  whole  is  too  crowded 
with  figures  and  too  up-and-down  in  its  lines.  The 
picture  was  done  in  Paris  by  Rubens  himself,  and 
much  of  it  done  with  the  Queen  looking  on  as  he 
worked.  Perhaps  this  embarrassed  him,  for  the 
work  is  not  so  satisfactory  as  some  of  the  others, 
though  it  contains  beautiful  morsels,  such  as  the 
nymphs,  the  charming  cupids,  the  satyrs,  and  the 
helmeted  figure  at  the  left.  The  Queen  is  gor- 
geously gowned,  too,  but  Rubens  probably  pretti- 
fied her  under  pressure.  Look  closely  at  the  han- 
dling. It  is  Rubens's  own  brush,  and  should  be 
taken  as  a  criterion  of  Rubens's  handling  and 
applied  to  his  other  pictures  in  this  room  and 
elsewhere.  Look  at  the  handling  of  the  satyrs  at 
the  right  or  the  central  figures,  the  flowers,  the 
cupids.  There  is  here  no  question  of  bad  drawing, 
or  spotty  high  lights,  or  ineffective  brush-work 
which  shows  in  so  many  alleged  Rubenses.  Every 
stroke  is  just  right,  quite  perfect,  absolute  in  its 
effect. 

2101.    The    Queen   Leaving   the   Castle  of  Blots.     A 

good  portrait  of  the  Queen,  no  doubt.  The  night 
scene,  with  the  followers  of  the  Queen  about  her, 
is  well  given,  but  the  picture  is  a  little  out  of  key 


122  THE  LOUVRE 

with  the  others  of  the  series.  It  is  too  dark. 
Rubens  has  again  used  a  diagonal  grouping  here 
to  give  life  and  movement.  The  Queen  is  in  the 
centre  of  the  diagonal  line,  while  the  figures  with  the 
torches  help  out  the  top.  It  is  not  the  most  effec- 
tive of  the  pictures  in  the  series,  though  Rubens's 
own  hand  is  apparent  in  the  work  here  and  there. 

2103.    Peace  Concluded.     The  central  figure  with  the 

torch  turned  down  is  quite  good,  as  also  the  Queen 
and  the  attendant  back  of  her.     Rubens  has  again 
used  his  diagonal  arrangement  of  figures  here  to 
give  movement  and  push  upward.    The  best  group 
of  figures  is  at  the  left.     Those  at  the  right,  in- 
cluding the  figure  with  the  snake,  are  a  bit  heavy. 
The  architecture  is  not  particularly  well  drawn  and 
the  sky  is  rather  dark.     They  probably  indicate 
school  work. 

2104.    Interview   between    the   Queen  and  Her  Son. 

The  Queen  as  the  centre  of  the  picture  is  magnifi- 
cent in  white  silk,  as  is  Louis  in  his  salmon-coloured 
scarf.  All  of  the  upper  half  of  the  picture  is  gor- 
geous in  colour.  At  top  and  bottom  darks  are  used 
to  centralise  the  light  on  the  two  chief  characters. 
These  chief  characters  were  done  by  Rubens's  own 
hand;  those  at  the  right  and  left,  with  the  animals 
below,  were  probably  by  pupils. 

2102.    The  Queen  Reconciled  to  Her  Son.     It  is  less 

spirited  than  the  earlier  pictures  of  the  series,  as 
though  the  hand  and  brain  of  the  designer  of  the 
series  had  become  a  little  weary  of  harping  on  the 
same  note.  The  nude  Mercury  (a  rather  fine 
figure)  and  the  cardinals  in  red  make  up  the  colour 
scheme.  The  work  is  almost  entirely  by  pupils. 
Compare  the  hair  of  the  Queen  and  her  attendant 


RUBENS  123 

with  that  in  No.  2099,  and  you  will  see  the  differ- 
ence there  as  elsewhere. 

2100.  -  —  The  Majority  of  Louis  XIII.  As  decoration, 
it  is  not  without  fine  colour  quality  and  fine  draw- 
ing, though  it  is  largely  the  work  of  pupils.  Here 
once  more  is  the  diagonal  line  showing  in  the  row- 
ers. The  picture  has  movement  but  it  is  a  little 
flat  in  the  types. 

2098.  —  The  Exchange  of  the  Two  Princesses.  This  is 
*  quite  a  rainbow  of  colour.  Every  note  of  the  pal- 
ette is  used,  and  without  much  breaking  into 
half-tints.  What  splendid  creatures  the  figures  in 
helmets!  And  the  two  princesses  in  their  wonder- 
ful silks,  how  beautifully  they  are  done!  These 
are  portraits  of  Anne  of  Austria  and  Elizabeth  of 
France.  They  were  probably  painted  by  Rubens's 
own  hand,  for  it  is  not  thinkable  that  he  would 
trust  them  to  a  pupil.  Their  dresses  are  mag- 
nificent in  sheen  and  texture.  The  rest  of  the 
picture  was  no  doubt  executed  by  pupils.  The 
central  figures  are  surrounded  by  other  figures  and 
framed  in  by  the  arching  curtain  above  and  the 
flat  floor  of  the  red  dais  below. 

2095. Apotheosis  of  Henry  IV.     In  trying  to  give 

several  incidents  on  the  one  canvas  the  painter 
has  somewhat  scattered  this  composition.  The 
winged  figure  in  the  centre  was  relied  upon  to  hold 
the  various  parts  together,  but  it  hardly  does  so. 
What  a  figure  it  is,  with  its  wondrous  breast  and 
torso  worthy  of  Michelangelo!  Notice  also  the 
reclining  figure  at  the  left.  These  two  figures  are 
the  strong  features  of  the  picture,  though  the  kneel- 
ing figures  at  the  right  are  splendid  in  their  robes. 
The  action  of  the  picture  begins  at  the  left  with 


124  THE  LOUVRE 

the  King  and  swings  up  and  to  the  right  in  a 
half  arch.  This  is  repeated  in  the  winged  figure, 
the  armour,  and  the  figure  in  green.  There  is  once 
more  a  partial  repetition  of  this  springing  arch  in 
the  courtier  in  black  and  in  the  Queen.  We  feel 
as  though  all  these  wheeling  lines  to  the  right 
should  be  met  and  counterbalanced  by  something 
from  the  right  springing  to  the  left.  Perhaps 
that  is  why  the  composition  is  not  entirely  satis- 
factory. The  picture  has  much  pupils'  work  in  it. 

2093.    Henry  IV  Commits  the  Government  to  Marie 

de  Medicis.  W'here  in  the  many  pictures  of  the 
Louvre  can  you  find  such  a  red  as  that  in  the  small- 
clothes of  the  Dauphin?  And  where  such  texture 
painting  as  in  the  silk  of  the  Queen's  dress,  or  the 
golden  robe  of  the  attendant  at  the  right,  or  the 
armour  of  the  warriors  at  the  left?  Mere  decorative 
effects?  Yes;  but  that  was  what  Rubens  was 
striving  for.  The  head  of  the  attendant  at  the  ex- 
treme right  is  that  of  Suzanne  Fourment,  the  model 
for  the  Chapeau  de  Poil  (No.  852)  in  the  National 
Gallery,  London.  Again  there  is  indication  of  pu- 
pils' work  almost  everywhere  in  this  picture. 

2091.    The  Marriage  of  Marie  de  Medicis  and  Henry 

IV.  The  King  as  Jupiter  and  the  Queen  as  Juno 
are  seated  in  the  clouds,  with  the  suggestion  again 
of  the  diagonal  line  repeated  slightly  in  the  car. 
What  wonderful  drawing  and  what  colour  splendour 
is  here!  No  matter  whether  done  by  Rubens  or  by 
his  pupils,  the  work  is  excellent.  Notice  the  cupids 
riding  the  lions.  They  are  very  close  to  Rubens's 
own  workmanship,  as  also  the  figures  above.  The 
car  shows  shop  work,  and  also  the  little  cupids  at 
the  top.  Both  King  and  Queen  are  superbly  done. 


RUBENS  125 

2089.    Marriage    by  Proxy  of  Marie  de   Medicis  and 

Henry  IV.  It  is  a  more  formal,  balanced  composi- 
tion than  the  others  of  the  series,  though  with 
quite  as  much  richness  and  splendour  of  effect. 
The  two  chief  figures  show  Rubens  in  part,  but  the 
rest  of  the  picture  seems  the  work  of  pupils.  The 
Queen  is  truly  queen-like. 

2105.   Triumph  of  Truth.     An  upright  composition 

designed  to  supplement  No.  2085.  The  figures  be- 
low are  beautifully  drawn,  but  the  composition  is 
not  so  happy  as  its  companion  piece  on  the  oppo- 
site side  of  the  main  entrance.  The  arrangement 
is  in  the  form  of  an  inverted  pyramid,  or  triangle, 
the  nude  figure  being  the  acute  angle.  This  nude 
was  evidently  touched  in  the  head  and  hah*  by 
Rubens — no  more. 

2096.    The  Government  of  the  Queen.     A  huge,  ob- 

long  canvas  in  the  anteroom  without.  It  is  not 
effectively  held  together  or  centralised  in  interest 
by  line,  light,  or  colour.  The  eyes  wander  and 
find  beautiful  parts  to  admire,  as,  for  instances,  the 
gorgeous  robe  of  the  seated  Jupiter,  the  backs  of 
the  figures  to  the  left  of  his  staff,  the  divine  Apollo 
with  the  bow  (taken  from  the  Apollo  Belvidere), 
the  lovely  Venus  above  him  holding  back  the  fiery 
Mars.  There  are  parts  of  it  of  great  beauty,  but 
it  is  not  a  happy  composition.  Rubens  evidently 
intended  the  composition  to  be  that  of  an  open  V, 
the  bottom  of  the  V  being  the  Apollo,  the  right 
arm  of  it  springing  up  and  away  from  the  Venus, 
the  left  arm  of  it  toward  the  Jupiter.  But  this  very 
arrangement  resulted  in  the  scattering  of  the  figures 
rather  than  in  the  uniting  of  them.  The  spaces 
under  the  arms  of  the  V  had  to  be  filled  in  with 


126  THE  LOUVRE 

unrelated  figures,  as  we  see,  and  the  angle  of  the 
V  had  again  to  be  filled  in  with  another  group.  It 
was  a  try  at  a  new  design,  but  not  a  very  successful 
one.  The  original  sketch  for  this  picture  in  the 
Munich  Gallery  shows  a  large  door  cut  through 
at  the  left  where  are  now  shown  dark  clouds,  and 
this  awkward  necessity  was  probably  responsible 
for  the  oddity  of  the  composition. 

2086.  -    —Birth  of  Marie  de  Medicis.     It  does  not  speak 
so  much  for  Rubens  as  for  assistants  in  his  work- 
shop.    It  is  not  hung  in  the  main  room  but  in 
the  anteroom  without.     Once  more  there  is  the 
use  of  diagonal  composition  to  give  life  and  motion. 
The  colour  is  not  remarkable. 

2087.  -     —  The    Education    of    Marie    de    Medicis.     The 

flesh  of  the  three  Graces  seems  pallid  for  Rubens, 
but  there  is  a  large  flow  and  swing  of  the  figures  and 
some  charm  in  the  little  Marie  de  Medicis.  The 
picture  has  been  much  restored,  and  the  catalogue 
tells  us  that  some  of  the  drapery  of  the  Graces  was 
added  by  later  hands.  It  must  be  regarded  as 
studio  work  hurt  by  restoration.  The  nymph  at 
the  left  has  the  face  of  Suzanne  Fourment. 

2560.  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.  The  Sunburst.  At  last 
we  have  here  a  Ruisdael  of  really  fine  quality,  with 
heaped  cumulus  clouds,  a  blue  sky,  and  a  com- 
manding stretch  of  mountain  landscape.  The  col- 
our is  grey  but  harmonious  and  the  atmospheric 
effect  is  excellent.  The  mountains  are  well  drawn 
and  the  whole  picture  is  realistic — that  is,  for  Ruis- 
dael. See  also  the  small  landscape,  No.  2561. 

2558.    Storm  on  the  Dikes  of  Holland.     A  fine  ma- 

*       rine  with  a  good  deal  of  power  in  the  water  of  the 


SARTO,  ANDREA  DEL  127 

foreground  and  the  feeling  of  a  great  wind.  There 
is  a  breath  of  reality  about  it,  and  the  pity  is  that 
Ruisdael  did  not  oftener  do  this  sort  of  thing, 
which  was  before  him,  rather  than  his  mountain 
waterfalls  which  he  saw  only  in  his  imagination. 

2559.  -  —  The  Thicket  or  Bush.  This  is  the  picture 
that  was  so  much  studied  at  one  time  by  Rousseau, 
Dupre,  and  others  of  the  Fontainebleau-Barbizon 
School.  These  men  got  their  first  impetus  and 
influence  from  the  pictures  of  the  Dutch  painters, 
and  not  from  Constable,  as  is  persistently  asserted 
by  historians  of  art  who  will  not  take  the  trouble 
to  compare  dates  of  birth.  This  is  an  attempt 
at  realistic  portrayal,  and  with  considerable  suc- 
cess. It  is  a  good  Ruisdael. 

2661D.  Ruysdael,  Salomon  van.  Landscape.  A  large 
and  mannered  work  in  the  style  of  Van  Goyen, 
whom  Ruysdael  followed.  Notice  the  trees  and 
the  muddy  foliage,  with  the  ill-drawn  reflections 
in  the  water.  Everything  in  the  picture  is  done 
with  the  same  coarse,  heavy  brush.  See  also  Nos. 
2561B  and  2561c. 

2564.  Santvoort,  Dirck  Dircksz  van.  Pilgrims  at 
Emmaus.  It  suffers  by  comparison  with  the  Rem- 
brandt (No.  2539)  of  the  same  subject  in  this 
gallery,  but  in  itself  it  is  not  a  bad  picture  though 
a  little  too  sleek  and  smooth  in  the  surface.  The 
heads  are  overwrought.  The  old  man  is  somewhat 
in  the  vein  of  the  attributed  Rembrandt  (No. 
2541  A)  across  the  room. 

1515.  Sarto,  Andrea  del.  Holy  Family.  Rather  too 
smoothly  done,  but  with  robes  quite  as  well  drawn 
as  Fra  Bartolommeo's  and  flesh  colour  far  better. 


128  THE  LOUVRE 

An  oval  composition  filling  a  square,  with  repeated 
lines  of  much  grace  and  force.  What  arms  and 
legs  Andrea  could  draw!  And  what  shadows  he 
could  paint!  The  colour  is  a  little  rambling  and 
wanting  in  unity,  while  the  surface  has  suffered 
from  much  scrubbing  and  repainting.  The  Child's 
knee,  St.  John's  legs,  and  all  the  hands  and  arms 
have  lost  their  finer  modelling. 

1514.   Charity.     A  monumental  figure  after  the  style 

of  Michelangelo's  Madonnas  in  stone,  and  with 
the  same  closely-knit  pyramidal  group.  Fine  in 
the  drawing  but  somewhat  lacking  in  that  austere 
majesty  which  doubtless  Andrea  thought  to  con- 
vey. The  landscape  is  excellent  and  quite  mature 
for  a  Florentine  to  have  done!  The  colour  is  un- 
fortunate in  its  predominant  blues  with  hardly 
enough  warm  tones  to  balance  them.  Well  placed 
on  the  canvas,  and  a  considerable  work  of  art  that 
perhaps  fails  to  impress  as  it  should.  The  surface 
has  suffered  greatly,  and  the  whole  face  of  it  is 
stained  with  bad  varnishes  and  repaintings. 

1516.    Holy  Family.     It  is  too  badly  repaired  and 

mended  to  say  much  about  it  except  that  the  colour, 
the  light  and  shade,  with  the  oval  of  the  composi- 
tion, are  still  attractive.  Perhaps  the  figures  are 
crowded  into  the  oval  mechanically  and  with  some 
effort.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  say  now  who 
did  the  work. 

1516A.     Portrait  of  Andrea  Fausti.      It  seems  to  be 

tolerably  well  drawn  in  the  hands  and  face — bar- 
ring the  cleaning-room  scrubbing — but  is  it  the 
drawing  of  Andrea  the  Faultless  or  of  some  lesser 
Florentine?  Did  Andrea  do  the  hard  eyelids,  or 
the  wandering  outline  of  the  face,  or  the  poor  ear 


SIGNORELLI,  LUCA  129 

and  the  problematical  neck  and  cheek?  The  cloak 
is  more  like  him,  but  the  hands  are  a  little  square 
in  the  joints  and  flat  in  the  modelling.  Again, 
the  grey  colour  suggests  Andrea,  but  perhaps  the 
suggestion  is  superficial.  Franciabigio  did  things 
in  the  same  scheme  of  grey.  Not  a  bad  portrait 
nor  yet  a  very  good  one.  It  is  a  little  overposed. 

1519.  Savoldo,  Girolamo.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  It 
looks  as  though  carved  out  of  wood  and  painted  an 
Indian  red,  but,  even  so,  it  has  some  strength  to 
it.  The  very  harshness  of  the  face  lines  give  it 
force,  and  the  well-drawn  eyes  lend  it  intelligence. 
The  dress- is  rather  well  done.  Is  it  a  Savoldo? 

N.  N.  Scorel,  Jan  van.  Portrait  of  Paracelsus.  It 
looks  like  a  version  of  the  Rubens  at  Brussels 
(No.  388),  which  is  said  to  be  a  copy  after  a  picture 
at  Nancy. 

1665.  Sienese  School.  Calvary.  One  of  several  early 
panels  of  the  Sienese  School  grouped  together,  in- 
cluding Nos.  1667,  1664,  1666.  They  are  all  at- 
tractive in  colour  and  in  the  tooling  and  stamping 
of  the  gold  haloes.  The  panels  are  very  decora- 
tive though  now  somewhat  injured. 

1525.  Signorelli,  Luca.  Birth  of  the  Virgin.  It  has 
great  spirit  with  astonishing  colour.  The  light  and 
atmosphere  of  the  room,  the  set-in  of  the  figures, 
with  the  movement  from  right  to  left,  how  won- 
derful they  are  for  that  Early  Renaissance  time! 
And  for  Signorelli,  who  was  so  much  more  of  a 
draughtsman  than  a  painter!  It  is  a  fine  early 
work  of  the  master  and  a  masterpiece  of  draw- 
ing, light,  shadow,  colour. 

1527.  Fragment  of  a  Large  Composition.  A  group 

of  figures  cut  away  from  a  large  composition.  It 


130  THE  LOUVRE 

is  spiritless,  lifeless,  though  bright  in  colour.  It 
has  not  Signorelli's  drawing  in  attractive  presenta- 
tion, but  is  a  dull  statement  of  a  dull  group  of 
facts.  Notice  No.  1525  for  a  sharp  contrast  to  it. 

1526.   Adoration  of  Magi.     A  dark  picture  with  a 

huddle  of  people  in  the  foreground  and  middle 
distance.  The  landscape,  on  the  other  hand,  shows 
feeling  for  space  though  shut  in  at  the  sides.  There 
is  crude  drawing  in  the  robes  and  figures,  some 
rather  sentimental  types,  as,  for  example,  the 
standing  figure  at  the  left,  and  quite  a  display  of 
dark,  shadowed,  hot  colour.  The  total  effect  does 
not  excite  enthusiasm.  Many  features  of  it  sug- 
gest that  it  may  be  workshop  work.  It  is  rather 
savage  drawing  for  even  Signorelli  to  have  done. 

N.  N.  St.  Jerome.     It  is  probably  by  Signorelli,  but 

it  is  not  such  a  supreme  piece  of  drawing  as  one 
might  imagine  at  first  blush.  It  is  hard  in  mod- 
elling but  has  some  brutal  strength  about  it. 
Some  of  his  school  cultivated  just  this  same  brutal- 
ity with  rather  poor  results.  A  good  landscape  at 
the  back  and  a  rather  lumpy,  heavy  figure  on  the 
cross  in  the  sky. 

1383.    Simone    Martini.     The    Way    to    Calvary.     A 

small  panel  of  dramatic  power  in  the  composition, 
and  with  clear  colour.  Notice  the  Magdalen  in 
red.  The  picture  has  feeling  as  well  as  delicacy 
of  workmanship.  Companion  portions  in  Berlin 
(No.  1070A,  with  a  different  background  in  the 
sky)  and  in  Antwerp  (Nos.  257-260). 

1531.     Solario,  Andrea.      Portrait  of  Charles  d'Amboise. 

A  beautiful  portrait  in  its  colour  and  in  its  land- 
scape background.  As  characterisation  it  is  per- 


SOLARIO  131 

haps  a  little  placid  and  smooth,  but  noble  and  digni- 
fied. The  drawing  is  much  in  the  style  of  the 
Lucrezia  Crivelli  (No.  1600),  with  which  it  should 
be  closely  compared.  Both  pictures  have  been  at- 
tributed to  Leonardo,  and  there  are  good  grounds 
for  believing  them  done  by  the  same  hand;  but  it 
is  questionable  if  that  hand  was  either  Leonardo's 
or  Solario's.  Certainly  the  pictures  bear  a  family 
resemblance  to  each  other  in  look,  sentiment,  qual- 
ity, drawing,  and  flesh  colour.  They  are  nearer 
together  than  were  Leonardo  and  Solario.  No- 
tice the  trees  at  the  right  and  the  fine  snow  moun- 
tains at  the  back.  Did  Solario  ever  reach  up  to 
their  maturity  of  conception  or  handling?  He  ap- 
proached it  (at  the  Brera,  Milan),  but  fell  short. 
Notice  how  different  from  this  are  the  Solario 
landscapes  in  Nos.  1532  and  4530.  Leonardo,  on 
the  contrary,  suggests  these  trees  in  his  St.  Anne 
picture  here  in  the  Louvre.  See  also  the  note  on 
the  Lucrezia  Crivelli  (No.  1600),  under  Leonardo. 
The  painter  of  this  picture  and  the  Lucrezia 
Crivelli  did  also  the  portrait,  No.  433,  in  the  Cas- 
tello  Museum,  Milan. 

Calvary.     An  arrangement  of  brilliant  colours 

in  a  landscape,  very  different  from  that  in  No. 
1531.  The  drawing  of  the  Christ  is  rather  bad, 
and  the  figures  below  are  not  much  better.  The 
panel  is  spattered  with  colours,  but  there  is  little 
sense  of  colour  manifested.  The  landscape  is  the 
best  part  of  a  rather  loosely  arranged  picture. 
Hurt  by  retouching. 

Madonna  of  the  Green  Cushion.     In  Solario's 

early  style.  A  pretty,  oval  arrangement  of  the 
figures  within  a  square,  rather  porcelain-like  in 


132  THE  LOUVRE 

surface,  hard  in  drawing,  and  a  little  sharp  in  col- 
our. There  is  some  naive  play  of  the  Child  with 
his  foot  and  some  tenderness  in  the  Mother.  The 
landscape  shows  Venetian  influence  and  is  crude 
and  immature  as  compared  with  that  in  No.  1531. 
Yet  this  landscape  in  No.  1530  is  the  true  Solario 
landscape. 

1539.  Spagna,  Lo.     The  Nativity.     It  contains  the  true 
Umbrian  sentiment  with  the  types,  colour,   and 
landscape  of  the  Umbrian  School.     In  feeling  it  is 
rather   fine.     The    angels    above   and   below,   the 
Madonna,  Joseph,  and  the  shepherds  all  belong  to 
the  same  family  and  are  imbued  with  the  same 
emotion  and  tenderness.     The  picture  is  good  in 
colour  and   in  feeling  for  space,   though  frail  in 
its  drawing.     A  replica  of  it   is  in  the  Vatican 
Gallery. 

1540.    Madonna  and  Child.     A  slight  Madonna  and 

*  Child  that  show  some  very  positive  indications  of 
being   by    Lo    Spagna.     The   influence   upon    Lo 
Spagna  of  Pinturicchio  is  here  apparent.     There 
is  another  version  hanging  on  a  door-casing  near 
at  hand,  and  put  down  to  the  School  of  Perugino. 

2579.  Steen,  Jan.     A  Family  Meal.     A  huddled  com- 
position and  not  by  any  means  Steen  at  his  best. 
The  drawing  and  brush-work    are  both  careless. 
For  an  excellent  example  of  Steen,  see  his  Bad 
Company  (No.  2580)  in  this  gallery. 

2580.   Bad  Company.    A  very  beautiful  Steen — Steen, 

*  who  always  seemed  at  his  best  pictorially  when 
his  characters  were  at  their  worst  morally.     This 
is  a  painter's  picture  from  start  to  finish,  with  per- 
fect drawing  and  superb  handling.     Notice  the  arm 


TERBORCH  133 

and  dress  of  the  young  woman  picking  the  young 
man's  pocket,  the  head  of  the  old  go-between,  the 
shoulders  of  the  creature  in  blue  who  is  so  tipsy 
she  cannot  see  straight.  As  for  the  young  man, 
how  heavily  he  leans  and  lurches,  what  a  wonder- 
ful coat  he  wears,  how  his  shoes  and  stockings  are 
painted!  And  the  ruffians  at  the  back,  how  well 
they  keep  their  place  in  the  picture!  It  is  superb 
painter's  work — much  better  than  the  large  No. 
2578  hanging  near  it. 

Teniers  the  Younger,  David.     Works  of  Mercy. 

A  large  and  beautifully  painted  picture.  The 
landscape  and  the  sky  are  excellent  and  the  colour 
is  rich  and  harmonious.  What  still-life,  what  heads 
and  figures,  what  a  sky  and  clouds!  Reminiscent 
of  the  elder  Teniers. 

Interior  of  an  Inn.     This  picture,  with  Nos. 

2156,  2158,  2166,  are  good  examples  of  Teniers's 
facile  handling  and  good  colour.  There  are  a  great 
many  of  his  pictures  here  in  the  Louvre,  and  some 
of  them  are  excellent. 

Terborch,    Gerard.     The    Reading    Lesson.    It 

has  not  the  precise  Terborch  quality  about  it. 
The  painting  of  the  child's  hair  and  the  woman's 
face,  the  brown  coat  and  fur  edging  are  not  what 
one  expects  from  this  painter,  though  the  general 
look  of  the  picture  gives  a  reason  for  thinking  he 
painted  it.  Compare  it,  however,  with  No.  2587 
and  see  how  inferior  it  is  to  that  fine  work.  But 
considered  by  itself  it  is  a  fair  work  in  both  colour 
and  breadth  of  treatment. 

The  Concert.     An  inferior  Terborch,  which  has 

had  the  additional  misfortune  to  be  much  cleaned 


134  THE  LOUVRE 

and  somewhat  repainted,  as  notice  the  face  and 
hands  of  the  figure  with  the  lute.  It  comes  peri- 
lously near  to  being  a  picture  by  Verkolie. 

2588.  The  Music  Lesson.  Perhaps  at  one  time  it 

was  a  masterpiece,  but  to-day  it  is  much  hurt  by 
excessive  cleaning,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  face,  leg, 
and  wrist  of  the  player  and  in  the  face,  arms,  and 
dress  of  the  lady.  All  of  which  may  account  for 
the  pallid  look  of  it.  There  are  still  fine  things  in 
it,  such  as  the  drawing  of  the  furniture,  for 
instance. 

2587.  -  —  The  Military  Gallant.  A  Terborch  of  much 
*  excellence  in  the  figures,  the  table,  the  still-life, 
but  now  a  little  injured  in  the  red  background 
by  old  repainting  that  has  covered  everything 
up  to  the  mantel.  Notice  the  good  drawing  of 
the  hands  and  the  painting  of  the  hair,  the  fur, 
the  satin,  the  leather  boots,  and  then  go  at  once 
to  Nos.  2589  and  2591  for  purposes  of  comparison. 
What  a  good  table-cloth  in  this  picture!  What  a 
floor  and  what  well-placed  feet  upon  it! 

1547.  Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Battista.  The  Lord's  Supper. 
A  little  warm  in  colouring,  but  very  good  in  its 
types,  and  very  fetching  in  its  effective  handling 
of  the  brush.  Tiepolo's  brush-work  was  facility 
itself. 

1549.  Madonna  and  Child  with  St.  John.  A  banner 

painted  on  both  sides  (St.  Martin  saying  Mass  on 
the  reverse),  coarsely  done,  and  with  little  of  the 
handling  of  Tiepolo  now  recognisable  in  it.  It  was 
never  more  than  a  rough  painting,  done  probably 
for  street  decoration  or  processional  purposes. 

1464.  Tintoretto,  JaCOpO  (Robusti).  Susanna  at  the 
Bath.  It  is  not  a  satisfactory  Tintoretto,  inas- 


TITIAN  135 

much  as  it  shows  little  of  his  invention  or  imagina- 
tive quality  and  still  less  of  his  grace,  or  power, 
or  impetuosity.  The  Susanna  is  true  enough  in 
bulk,  but  lumpy,  the  Elders  are  only  spots  of  col- 
our, and  the  foolish-looking  maid  at  the  left  again 
figures  only  as  colour.  The  picture  is  not  inspired 
— not  even  in  the  tropical  foliage.  The  figure  of 
Susanna  has  been  flayed  and  the  whole  picture 
restored.  Look  at  the  now  dreadful  ducks  in  the 
pool  for  an  idea  of  how  much  the  picture  has  black- 
ened. 

1465.    Paradise.     A   first   sketch   for   the   enormous 

picture  in  the  Ducal  Palace,  Venice.  It  is  differ- 
ent from  the  finished  picture  in  many  features  of 
composition  and  grouping,  is  brighter  in  light, 
higher  keyed  in  colour,  and  has  not  nearly  so  many 
figures. 

1464  bis.  Christ    Mourned    by    Angels.      No    matter 

who  did  it,  it  is  well  done.  It  is  only  a  sketch,  but 
what  feeling  it  has!  What  colour  and  light  and 
shadows  it  suggests! 

1467.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  might  originally  have 

passed  as  a  portrait  of  Aretino  by  Titian,  but  now 
no  one  knows  what  it  is.  The  picture  is  a  wreck, 
as  may  be  seen  by  looking  at  the  face  and  hands. 
It  should  be  in  the  storeroom. 

1583.  Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio).  The  Crowning  with 
Thorns.  A  comparatively  late  picture,  done  per- 
haps when  Titian  was  in  his  seventies.  There  is 
something  of  strain  about  the  action  of  the  fig- 
ures, something  of  the  theatrical  about  their  stag- 
ing, something  academic  and  posed  rather  than 
real  or  actual.  But  there  is  reality  enough  about 


136  THE  LOUVRE 

certain  details  of  it,  as,  for  instance,  the  physical 
agony  of  Christ,  the  drawing  of  the  legs,  knees, 
and  feet.  Look  at  them  for  a  moment,  for  they 
are  supreme.  Realistic  also  are  the  chain  ar- 
mour of  the  man  at  the  right,  the  steps,  the  wall. 
The  picture  is  now  yellowed  by  varnish  and  dark- 
ened in  the  shadows,  but  there  is  still  some  good 
colour  and  a  feeling  of  air  about  it.  The  theme 
was  repeated  later  in  a  broader  manner  in  the 
Munich  picture  (No.  1114). 

1584.    The  Entombment.     A  famous  picture  and,  all 

***  told,  quite  a  perfect  one.  It  is  an  arch  compo- 
sition, on  an  oblong  canvas,  with  the  figures  well 
balanced  and  beautifully  knit  together.  The  weird 
light  is  centralised  on  the  dead  Christ  and  the  white 
sheet.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  not  rigid,  but  re- 
laxed, sagging  down  heavily.  This  sagging  curve 
of  the  figure  is  emphasised  by  repetition  in  the 
curved  backs  of  the  supporting  figures.  You  feel 
the  strain  of  the  men  holding  the  body — the  strain 
of  weight.  Beautifully  drawn  is  the  collapsed  fig- 
ure. Look  at  the  knees  and  feet,  the  arms  and 
hands,  for  their  drawing — particularly  that  limp 
left  arm  and  hand.  The  shadow  on  the  face  has 
blackened  through  time  and  is  now  a  little  false  in 
value,  but  Titian  intended  that  it  should  obscure 
the  face  or,  at  least,  make  it  mysterious.  The 
grief  of  St.  John  at  the  back,  the  Madonna  and 
Magdalen  at  the  left,  is  intense,  but  it  is  a  noble, 
restrained  grief.  It  is  the  human  element  in  a 
sacred  scene — an  inarticulate  cry  in  a  gorgeous  col- 
our pattern.  The  colour  of  the  picture  is  superb 
in  its  fulness,  richness,  and  resonance.  Every  one 
praises  its  harmony.  In  the  fine  sky  at  the  back, 
lighted  by  a  rising  moon,  notice  how  the  painter 


TITIAN  137 

has  repeated  the  blue  of  the  Madonna's  robe. 
The  white  of  the  sheet  is  again  repeated  in  the 
sleeve  and  fainter  and  farther  away  in  the  whitish 
clouds.  The  man  with  the  beard  looks  like  Titian's 
friend  Aretino.  Painted  about  1525.  Pieced  out 
in  the  sky  and  a  little  retouched,  but  in  fair  con- 
dition. 

1592. The  Man  with  the  Glove.     A  famous  portrait 

of  Titian's,  much  talked  about  by  young  art  stu- 
dents in  Paris,  and  generally  considered  by  them  as 
the  last  word  in  portraiture.  Beyond  doubt,  it 
is  a  fine  portrait,  with  much  nobility  and  dignity 
of  presence  and,  withal,  much  simplicity  and  large 
truth.  The  man  is  apparently  without  fear  and 
without  reproach.  The  glove  is  easily  and  effect- 
ively done;  the  right  hand  is  perhaps  a  little  posed, 
a  little  academic.  The  picture  is  now  rather  black, 
and,  unhappily,  it  has  been  hurt  by  restorations. 
Notice  that  the  shadow  on  the  neck  is  too  dark, 
as  the  result  of  repainting.  Elsewhere  throughout 
the  picture  there  have  been  retouching  and  re- 
painting— in  the  face,  hands,  glove,  and  in  the 
blacks  and  whites  of  the  costume.  The  contours 
of  the  head  have  almost  disappeared  in  the  dark 
background. 

1586.  -  —  The  Council  of  Trent.  This  picture  is  not 
by  Titian,  but  it  is  a  good  picture  nevertheless. 
The  light  and  atmosphere  of  the  Church,  its  spa- 
ciousness and  lift,  are  well  suggested.  How  well 
the  figures  are  massed  and  keep  their  place !  And 
what  good  colour!  The  colour  points  to  Titian's 
School,  from  which  the  picture  doubtless  emanated. 

1595.   Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  will  not  do  for  Titian, 

though  attributed  to  him  in  the  catalogue.     Moroni 


138  THE  LOUVRE 

might  be  a  nearer  guess,  but  there  is  no  certainty 
about  that  either.  It  is  an  ordinary  portrait,  and 
the  best  part  of  it  is  in  the  hands.  The  head  is 
neither  pleasing  nor  convincing. 

1588.   Portrait  of  Francis  I.     The  catalogue  suggests 

that  this  portrait  was  not  painted  from  life.     It  was, 
perhaps,  executed  from  a  medal,  as  the  sharp  pro- 
file indicates.     Perhaps  that  is  why  the  figure  looks 
as  though  it  were  guessed  at,  with  its  broad,  flat 
front  and  poor  arms.     The  drawing  of  the  neck 
under  the  ear  is  rather  bad.    No  doubt  Titian  did 
it,  but  did  it  carelessly. 

1590.    Alphonso   I  and  Laura   Dianti.     One   of    the 

*  series  of  Titian's  beauty  pictures,  in  which  the 
same  model  appears,  whether  Laura  Dianti  or  the 
Duchess  of  Urbino,  or  merely  a  studio  model— 
the  last  the  most  likely  solution.  A  lovely  pic- 
ture, or  at  least  it  must  have  been  that  before  it 
was  repainted  and  had  darkened.  All  the  face, 
bust,  arms,  and  hands  have  been  gone  over,  but 
it  still  has  some  charm  about  it,  as  though,  like  a 
battered  Greek  marble,  its  beauty  could  not  be 
wholly  destroyed.  Look  at  the  lovely  contours  of 
the  cheeks  and  chin,  the  roundness  of  the  shoulder, 
the  beauty  of  the  arm.  What  form  is  there  still! 
And  what  beautiful  passages  of  colour! 

1589.    An  Allegory  in  Honour  of  Alphonse  d'Avalos. 

The  figures  of  the  two  women  at  right  and  left  are 
variations  of  those  used  by  Titian  in  the  Venus 
Equipping  Cupid  of  the  Borghese  Gallery  at  Rome. 
The  man  at  the  back  is,  or  was  supposed  to  be, 
a  portrait  of  Alphonse  d'Avalos.  The  picture  is 
still  a  rich  piece  of  old  Cordova-leather  colouring, 
but  the  drawing  and  painting  as  well  as  the  sur- 


TITIAN  139 

face  were  hopelessly  wrecked  by  repainting  years 
ago.  It  is  now  yellow  with  varnish.  But  notice  the 
grace  of  the  composition — the  filling  of  the  space 
with  a  large  oval  formed  by  the  heads,  necks,  and 
arms.  What  a  graceful  swing  of  line  in  the  figure 
at  the  left!  This  is  again  a  variation  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Venus  Equipping  Cupid. 

1577.  -  — Madonna  and  Child  with  Saints.  An  early 
Titian,  and  perhaps  never  a  very  good  one.  It  is 
now  in  poor  condition  from  staining,  repainting, 
and  bad  restoration,  as  notice  in  the  sky,  in  the 
figure  in  red,  in  the  faces  and  hands  of  both 
Madonna  and  Child.  Still  a  bright  bit  of  colour, 
but  wanting  in  depth  and  quality.  Another  ver- 
sion is  in  the  Vienna  Gallery  (No.  166). 

1578. Madonna  of  the  Rabbit.  A  smaller  and 

*  therefore  a  less-injured  picture  than  some  other 
Titians  in  the  gallery.  It  has  suffered  little.  A  com- 
paratively early  work  of  Titian's,  lofty  in  the  types 
and  very  fine  in  its  colour.  The  Madonna,  Child, 
and  St.  Catherine  make  a  charming  group,  with  deli- 
cate flesh  notes  surrounded  by  whites,  blues,  and 
reds.  The  whites  are  repeated  in  the  rabbit,  the 
blues  in  the  hills,  the  red  in  the  sky,  the  green  scarf 
of  St.  Catherine  in  the  grass  of  the  middle  distance. 
What  lovely  shadows  on  the  Child  and  on  the  face 
of  St.  Catherine !  In  a  landscape  of  much  breadth 
and  sweep.  The  motive  is  one  that  Titian  partly 
repeated  in  the  picture  in  the  National  Gallery  at 
London  (No.  635). 

1579.  -  —Holy  Family.  Little  more  than  the  original 
design  is  now  apparent.  Notice  the  bad  condition 
of  the  hands  of  the  Madonna.  The  faces  are  just 
as  badly  injured.  There  is  still  some  sweep  to 


140  THE  LOUVRE 

the  landscape,  some  colour  charm,  and  enough  no- 
bility and  loftiness  in  the  types  to  make  one  angry 
over  their  mistreatment.  The  St.  Agnes  is  the 
same  model  as  in  the  Palma  Vecchio  at  the  Ven- 
ice Academy  (No.  147).  It  is  probably  a  school 
piece. 

1580.  -    — Holy  Family.     The  group  of   figures  is  done 
with  some  constraint,  some  weakness  of  drawing, 
especially  noticeable  in  the  Joseph.     The  trees  are 
prim  and  niggled  in  the  foliage,  as  a  copyist  might 
do  them,  and  the  sky  is  uncertainly  smooth  and 
not  drawn,  but  put  in  flatly  in  strips  of  paint.     It 
is  probably  a  copy  by  some  pupil  or  at  best  a 
school  work. 

1581.   Pilgrims   at   Emmaus.     Still   a  fine   picture, 

**       and  even  now  the  figures,  set  back  and  in,  are 

surrounded  by  atmosphere,  enveloped  in  the 
shadows  of  the  hall.  Probably  Titian  amended  it 
and  changed  it  several  times  before  he  let  it  go 
from  him.  A  half  painted-out  column  still  shows 
in  the  sky  at  the  right  and  something  has  been 
changed  back  of  the  head  of  the  Christ.  The 
Christ  and  the  apostle  at  the  right  are  large  and 
dignified  types  and  the  boy  was  once  fine  in  col- 
our, no  doubt.  The  surface  has  been  cleaned  too 
much.  Yet  how  these  injured  pictures  survive  and 
shine  in  spots  of  beauty !  Look  at  the  table — how 
it  is  drawn!  at  the  white  of  the  cloth — what  a  sur- 
face! at  the  still-life  of  wine-glasses,  bottle,  and 
bread — how  they  are  painted!  Could  the  Little 
Dutchmen,  painting  lemon  skins  and  wine-glasses, 
reach  up  to  this?  And  look  at  the  figures  of  the 
group  in  that  big  landscape,  with  the  distant  Alps 
at  sunset.  It  is  a  maimed  masterpiece  but  still  a 
great  picture. 


TITIAN  141 

1585. St.  Jerome.     A  night  effect,  with  moonlight 

behind  the  trees,  but  the  light  is  not  very  apparent 
in  the  foreground.  St.  Jerome  shines  largely  by 
studio  light.  A  blackened  picture,  but  with  a  fine 
landscape,  and  still  possessed  of  the  charm  of  mys- 
tery in  the  shadows  of  the  night,  the  dark  trees, 
the  high  rocks,  and  the  suggestion  of  the  sea  in 
the  distance. 

1587.  -  — Jupiter  and  Antiope.  It  was  injured  a  long 
time  ago  by  fire  and  bad  restoration  and  after- 
ward repainted  by  Coy  pel.  Since  Coy  pel's  time  it 
has  been  relined  and  cleaned  some  more.  Among 
the  manglers  of  the  carcass,  possibly  some  one 
painted  in  the  central  tree  and  thus  cut  the  com- 
position into  two  pieces.  Originally,  no  doubt, 
it  was  a  fine  landscape.  And  originally  the  figure 
of  Antiope  bore,  perhaps,  some  resemblance  to 
the  Dresden  Giorgione.  It  has  even  yet  some 
grace  of  form.  The  picture  was  known  formerly 
as  the  Venus  del  Prado,  and  may  have  been  done 
by  Schiavone.  See  Schiavone's  Jupiter  and  lo  at 
St.  Petersburg  (No.  121)  for  similar  work. 

1591.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     A  noble  portrait  in  the 

style  of  the  Man  with  the  Glove  (No.  1592)  and 
probably  done  at  the  same  period.  It  is  more 
reserved  and  less  startling  than  the  Man  with  the 
Glove,  but  is  not  the  less  a  fine  piece  of  character- 
isation. Slightly  repainted  in  the  forehead,  nose, 
and  eyes.  Perhaps  that  accounts  for  the  harsh 
drawing  and  the  red  colouring  of  the  eyelids.  The 
background  has  become  very  dark.  Of  a  kind 
and  quality  to  match  the  portrait  by  Titian  at 
Munich  (No.  1111) — as  fine  a  portrait  as  Titian 
ever  produced. 


142  THE  LOUVRE 

1556.  Tura,  Cosimo.     Pieta.     A  lunette,  or  arch  com- 
*       position,  in  which  the  lines  of  the  figures  follow 

the  lines  of  the  arch.  The  drawing  is  in  Tura's 
usual  harsh  manner,  with  stringy,  contorted  figures, 
twisted  joints,  and  mannered  drapery.  The  colour 
is  morbid  but  extremely  decorative  and  very  rich, 
as  in  the  purples  and  greens  and  reds.  The  senti- 
ment is  tragic  and  the  expression  of  the  faces 
morose.  The  grey,  dead  figure  is  the  centre  of 
light  and  interest,  and  to  it  the  other  figures  are 
subordinated.  Tura  is  always  a  forceful  master, 
though  not  possessed  of  charm  or  grace  in  recita- 
tion. At  times,  however,  he  is  as  classic,  as  Greek, 
as  Mantegna.  As  a  draughtsman  in  line  for  line's 
sake,  there  is  something  singularly  fine  about  him. 

1557.   A  Monk  Standing.     An  excellent  picture  for 

the  study  of  Tura's  drawing.     The  lines  and  the 
light  and  shade  of  the  grey  robe  are  very  beauti- 
ful.    The  head,  hands,  and  feet  have  the  same  fine 
quality.     On  a  panel  which  is  broken  below. 

1273.  Uccello,  Paolo.  Battle  of  San  Romano.  This  is 
a  large  picture,  and  very  important  in  art  history, 
but  it  is  now  so  blackened  and  discoloured  that  it 
is  difficult  to  make  much  out  of  it.  There  are  three 
pictures  in  this  series  by  Paolo,  the  one  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London,  being  superior  to  this 
example  and  to  the  one  in  the  Uffizi.  Odd  as  these 
men  and  horses  appear,  and  archaic  and  wooden 
as  they  undoubtedly  are,  the  painter  had  the  true 
spirit  of  art  in  his  work.  The  horses  and  men  are 
for  painting  what  the  Colleoni  and  Gattemalata 
are  in  bronze  though  perhaps  not  so  well  set  forth. 
Donatello,  Verrocchio,  and  Paolo  Uccello  were  of 
the  same  brotherhood  in  art  though  not  of  the 


VELASQUEZ  »        143 

same  power  artistically.  The  composition  is  pro- 
cessional. The  figures  and  horses  at  the  right  with 
the  upright  spears  indicate  repose — the  troops  that 
have  not  yet  come  into  action.  The  movement  is 
to  the  left,  and  becomes  more  violent  as  the  spears 
descend  from  the  upright  to  the  horizontal.  Look 
at  this  cumulative  action,  too,  in  the  legs  under 
the  horse's  belly  at  the  left.  The  arrangement  is 
not  so  well  given  here  as  in  the  London  picture. 
The  movement  is  not  so  good.  Nor  is  the  colour  so 
fine,  though  there  is  some  display  of  reds,  blues, 
browns,  whites,  blacks  with  golds.  The  prance  of 
the  black  horse,  the  riders  in  steel,  the  background 
are  now  rather  lost  and  confused.  As  it  now  ap- 
pears, the  painting  is  a  flat  piece  of  decoration  and, 
as  such,  has  quality  and  distinction.  See  the  note 
on  the  National  Gallery  picture  (No.  583)  as,  in  a 
measure,  explanatory  of  this. 
Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.  Portrait  of  the 
Infanta  Margarita.  This  is  the  only  unquestioned 
portrait  by  Velasquez  in  the  Louvre.  There  is  no 
doubt  about  its  being  by  Velasquez  and  in  his  very 
best  manner.  It  is,  in  both  style  and  spirit,  of  a 
piece  with  the  bust  portrait  of  Philip  IV  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London  (No.  745),  and  the  three 
children's  portraits  at  Vienna  (Nos.  621,  611,  and 
615).  It  is  broadly  painted  and  yet  done  with  the 
utmost  tenderness,  with  a  delight  in  the  subject,  and 
a  painter's  joy  in  the  successful  handling  of  materials. 
For  proof,  look  at  the  lovely  quality  of  the  child's 
hair  and  the  light  upon  it,  the  drawing  of  the  child- 
ish cheek  and  chin,  the  placing  of  those  lustreless 
but  expressive  eyes,  the  doing  of  the  shadow  about 
the  neck  and  ears.  Notice  again  the  handling  of 
the  chains,  the  dress,  the  bows,  the  black  borders. 


144  THE  LOUVRE 

They  look  roughly  and  carelessly  done;  but  back 
away  from  the  picture  and  see  how  quickly  they 
begin  to  take  exact  and  positive  form,  how  the 
eyes  grow  more  expressive,  the  nose  becomes 
modelled,  the  light  on  the  hair  turns  into  sheen  and 
texture,  the  chair  grows  into  an  actual  chair,  re- 
vealing not  only  its  colour  but  its  velvet-cover  qual- 
ity. Notice,  further,  the  child's  body  under  the  stiff 
court  dress — how  well  rounded  it  is.  And  notice 
the  air  that  surrounds  the  little  figure.  Can  you  not 
feel  the  atmospheric  envelope?  And  the  charming 
colour  that  makes  the  whole  picture  so  supremely 
decorative?  When  you  have  wearied  of  looking 
at  the  picture  in  its  details,  stand  back  and  look 
at  it  as  a  whole,  and  consider  what  an  admirable 
characterisation  of  a  royal  child  you  have  before 
you.  It  is  a  masterpiece  in  every  respect.  And 
a  wonder — the  wonder  that  belongs  to  all  phases  of 
great  genius.  See  the  note  on  the  Velasquez  Philip 
IV  in  the  National  Gallery,  London  (No.  745). 
The  gold  lettering  at  top  (in  French)  was  probably 
added  later.  Pieced  out  at  the  bottom;  the  finger 
ends  of  the  right  hand  added. 

1735.    Portrait  of   Queen   Mariana  of  Austria.      (La 

*  Gaze  Coll.)  A  consideration  of  this  picture  must 
be  referred  back,  at  the  start,  to  the  Infanta  Mar- 
garita portrait  (No.  1731)  as  the  standard  of  Velas- 
quez here  in  the  Louvre.  The  Infanta  portrait  is 
Velasquez  at  his  height.  Study  that  picture  in 
connection  with  the  note  upon  it,  and  then  come 
back  at  once  to  this  picture.  There  is  a  difference 
between  them  that  is  not  exactly  the  difference 
between  Velasquez  at  his  best  and  Velasquez  in 
a  tamer  mood.  The  beautiful  hair  of  the  first 
portrait  is  here  replaced  by  a  wig,  but,  even  so, 


VELASQUEZ  145 

when  studied  for  the  light  and  shade  upon  it 
it  will  be  found  less  effective,  less  subtle  in  the 
uniform  shadows  of  it,  less  accurate  in  drawing 
and  touch  than  in  the  first  portrait.  Look  at 
the  wig  where  it  meets  the  cartonage-like  fore- 
head; or  at  the  eyes,  which  are  so  infinitely  in- 
ferior in  drawing  though  bright  in  colour;  at  the 
cheeks,  which  have  not  the  fleshy  quality,  and 
the  shadows  on  the  neck  and  chin,  which  have  not 
the  luminosity  of  the  Infanta  portrait.  Come 
down  to  the  neck,  which  is  a  little  false  in  drawing 
and  lighting;  the  dress,  which  is  easily  done  but 
not  with  certainty  in  the  bows  and  pearls  and 
collar;  the  arms,  which  are  awkwardly  placed;  the 
form,  which  is  almost  unbelievable;  the  envelope 
of  air,  which  is  lacking;  the  colour,  which  wants  in 
quality.  Did  the  same  hand  do  both  pictures  with 
such  different  results?  Possibly,  but  not  prob- 
ably. We  must  take  into  consideration  that  this 
picture  has  been  partly  repainted  and  the  brush 
underneath  falsified  or  nullified  in  places  by  the 
restorer's  brush  above  it;  but,  even  so,  there  is  a 
fundamental  difference  apparent.  The  picture  is 
very  close  to  Velasquez,  but  perhaps  not  directly 
by  him.  It  is  probably  a  school  version  of  the  half- 
length  of  the  same  subject  at  Vienna  (No.  617), 
blocked  out  and  painted  by  a  pupil,  perhaps  touched 
up  by  the  master,  and  afterward  spoiled  by  a 
restorer.  Beruete  does  not  agree  with  this,  but 
thinks  the  picture  a  preliminary  study  for  the 
Vienna  one. 

— Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman.  (La  Caze  Coll.) 
After  a  study  of  Nos.  1731  and  1735  this  picture 
seems  an  impossibility  as  a  Velasquez.  There  is 
not  a  stroke  of  Velasquez's  brush  in  or  about  it. 


146  THE  LOUVRE 

You  have  merely  to  look  at  the  plastered  hair  so 
badly  lighted  and  painted  at  the  sides,  at  the  paint- 
ing of  the  forehead,  the  ill-drawn  eyes,  nose,  and 
mouth,  the  altogether  impossible  neck,  the  flat 
chest  and  body,  the  armless  sleeves,  the  fumbling 
handling,  the  absence  of  colour,  light,  and  air  to 
feel  sure  that  Velasquez  never  did  it.  It  is  a  poor 
picture  by  Carreno  or  some  one  in  or  about  his 
studio. 

1732.  -  —Philip  IV.  Look  at  the  trees,  sky,  and  hills 
at  the  right  and  you  will  get  an  idea  of  the  picture's 
quality.  It  is  an  old  copy  (with  some  changes) 
of  the  picture  at  the  Prado,  Madrid  (No.  1184)— 
the  figure  and  dog  much  better  done  than  the  back- 
ground. 

1734.  A  Meeting  of  Thirteen  Persons.  There  is 

nothing  of  Velasquez  about  it.  It  is  a  later  work 
of  his  school — the  work  of  some  pupil  or  follower. 
The  same  hand  probably  did  the  large  Boar  Hunt 
in  the  National  Gallery,  London. 

2600.    Velde  the  Younger,  Willem  van  de.    Marine. 

The  sea  piece  that  we  usually  expect  from  Van 
de  Velde,  but  well  done  and  attractive. 

1673.    Venetian   School.     Portrait  of  a  Woman.     No 

doubt  it  was  put  down  to  the  Venetian  School  be- 
cause of  its  brown  skin,  flat  falling  hair,  and  red 
dress.  The  face  is  hard  in  the  brows  and  nose,  the 
eyes  are  ill  drawn,  the  chin  is  sharp,  the  neck  and 
chest  flat,  the  right  hand  excellent,  the  colour  very 
good.  It  shows  a  mixture  of  Venetian  and  northern 
influences,  and  was  probably  done  by  Bartolommeo 
Veneto — as  Mr.  Berenson  has  affirmed — though 
there  are  features,  such  as  the  hands,  the  chain, 
the  neck-yoke,  that  point  to  the  Florentine  School. 


VERONESE,  PAOLO  147 

2456.  Vermeer  (or  Van  der  Meet)  of  Delft,  Jan.  The 
*  Lace  Worker.  A  small  but  very  clever  Vermeer, 
apparently  in  its  original  state  so  far  as  the  surfaces 
are  concerned.  The  subject  is  attractive  and  the 
colour  is  charming.  The  small  white  dots — a  tech- 
nical mannerism  of  the  painter — appear  in  the  collar 
and  on  the  table-cloth.  This  is  the  true  Vermeer, 
not  the  pseudo-Vermeer.  See  the  notes  upon  him 
in  The  Hague  Gallery. 

1192.  Veronese,  Paolo  Caliari.  Marriage  in  Cana.  This 
***  picture  is  too  large  and  too  great  as  art  to  be  ade- 
quately treated  in  a  short  note.  The  student  is 
referred  to  an  article  by  Kenyon  Cox,  in  Scribner's 
Magazine,  for  December,  1904,  in  which  this  pic- 
ture with  its  intricate  composition  is  well  analysed. 
Perhaps  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say  here,  in  a  gen- 
eral way,  that  the  composition  is  a  series  of  inset 
angles  or  squares,  as  indicated  by  the  lines  of  the 
table.  The  abruptness  of  these  lines  is  rendered 
less  obvious  by  surrounding  the  table  with  figures. 
The  figures  on  both  sides  of  the  table,  seated  and 
standing,  serve  also  to  repeat  and  emphasise  the 
inset  lines  of  the  table  itself.  Notice,  further,  that 
back  of  the  table  and  rising  higher  on  the  canvas 
comes  the  stone  balustrade,  again  repeating  the 
table  inset  and  again  manned  by  standing  figures 
along  it  to  break  the  straight  line  somewhat  and  to 
give  it  colour.  Still  further  back  you  will  see  the 
inset  square  once  more  indicated  in  the  columns 
of  architecture  which  recede  on  either  side,  and 
at  the  back  make  a  feint  at  crossing  and  enclos- 
ing the  scene,  like  the  stone  balustrade,  but  stop 
with  a  suggestion,  leaving  the  eye  to  roam  off  to 
the  distant  campanile  and  beyond  that  to  the  far 
clouds  against  the  blue  sky. 


148  THE  LOUVRE 

Looked  at  more  casually,  and  less  structurally, 
the  picture  is  of  a  gathering  of  richly  robed  people 
in  a  Renaissance  architectural  setting  of  huge 
proportions  under  a  blue  sky,  the  depth  of  which 
is  suggested  by  the  pigeons  flying  in  the  air.  In  the 
middle  foreground,  as  characters  at  the  feast,  ap- 
pear Paolo  himself  (playing  a  viol),  Titian  (with 
a  cello),  Bassano  (with  a  flute).  In  the  left  fore- 
ground are  Francis  I,  Charles  V,  Eleanor  of  Aus- 
tria, Mary  of  England,  and  many  others.  Won- 
derful types  appear  everywhere.  They  all  wear 
splendid  robes.  What  head-dresses,  jewels,  table 
ornaments,  still-life!  What  columns,  balconies, 
and  distant  towers!  This  is  not  a  humble  mar- 
riage in  Cana,  but  a  grand  Venetian  pageant-feast. 
The  picture  is  splendidly  spectacular,  the  height 
of  Venetian  painting,  the  climax  of  the  Renais- 
sance, the  last  and  most  brilliant  phase  of  Italian 
decorative  art.  The  many  figures  are  well  held 
together  in  light  and  air;  the  composition  binds 
them  again  by  lines  and  groups;  the  colour  blends 
them  into  unison  and  harmony.  Every  note  in 
the  scale  is  divided  and  subdivided  and  yet  all 
ring  into  one  magnificent  harmony.  The  hold- 
together  of  this  enormous  picture — the  skill  with 
which  it  is  woven  into  a  unity,  a  united  impression 
— is  the  most  wonderful  part  of  it.  It  should  be 
looked  at  and  studied  every  time  one  enters  the 
Louvre,  for  both  technically  and  decoratively  it  is 
perhaps  the  most  marvellous  of  all  the  paintings 
in  this  gallery. 

1193.    Feast  in  the  House  of  Simon.     A  few  minutes' 

comparison  of  this  supper  piece  with  the  large 
Marriage  in  Cana  opposite  should  convince  one 
that  the  figures  are  slighter  and  less  majestic,  the 


VERONESE,  PAOLO  149 

costumes  more  formal  and  less  magnificent,  the 
architecture  less  fine  in  colour  and  less  true  in 
drawing,  the  sky  less  real,  the  light  less  luminous, 
the  whole  colour  scheme  less  colourful  and  less 
harmonious.  The  columns  are  not  detached  from 
one  another,  the  drawing  of  the  figures  is  weak  and 
often  faulty,  the  values  are  not  precisely  true. 
All  of  which  does  not  point  to  Paolo  in  a  weaker  or 
more  commonplace  mood  of  mind  and  hand  so 
much  as  to  some  member  of  his  school  trying  to  do 
a  huge  supper  picture  after  Paolo's  formula  and 
not  succeeding  very  well.  It  is  a  school  piece 
and  has  been  repainted  somewhat. 

— Holy  Family.  Small,  but  rather  good  in  col- 
our and  composition.  The  Madonna  has  a  far- 
away look  in  her  eyes,  the  Child  is  graceful  if  ill 
drawn,  and  the  attendant  saint  at  the  right  is  a 
fine  patch  of  colour  if  nothing  more.  The  donor 
is  not  so  badly  done  as  the  St.  George  at  the  left. 
It  is  a  sketchy  little  picture  probably  done  by 
some  member  of  Paolo's  family.  Injured  in  part. 

—Christ  Sinking  Under  the  Cross.  The  type, 
face,  and  red  robe  of  Christ  are  well  given,  but  for 
the  rest  of  the  picture  there  is  little  to  be  said  in 
praise  save  that  it  shows  rich  colour.  It  is  some 
sort  of  a  workshop  picture. 

— Calvary.  A  rich  piece  of  colour  with  fine 
robes,  tall  types,  and  much  grace  of  movement. 
How  graceful  the  oval  of  figures  about  the  Madonna 
or  the  Magdalen  at  the  foot  of  the  cross !  The  fig- 
ures on  the  cross  are  not  strengthened  by  their 
repeated  lines  (emphasised  in  the  ladder  and  the 
crosses),  but  they  are  strong  as  colour  against  the 
lead-hued  sky.  The  woman  in  a  gold-coloured 


150  THE  LOUVRE 

robe  with  her  face  hidden  is  effective.  It  is  a 
diagonal  composition  in  which  the  groups  cut 
across  the  wide  sky  and  landscape.  A  similar  pic- 
ture in  the  Venice  Academy  is  put  down  to  Car- 
letto  Caliari.  This  Louvre  picture  is  probably  by 
the  son  rather  than  by  the  father.  It  is  too  slight 
for  Paolo. 

1197.    -    — St.  Mark  Crowning   the    Theological  Virtues. 

This  decoration  was  painted  for  the  ceiling  of  a 
hall  in  the  Ducal  Palace  at  Venice  and  not  for  the 
Gallery  of  the  Louvre,  where  it  is  seen  at  the  wrong 
angle  and  focus  and  is  meaningless,  almost  ridicu- 
lous. It  is  a  school  piece.  No.  1198,  in  the  Salon 
Carre,  is  of  the  same  quality  and  history. 

1199.    Portrait   of  a    Young    Woman.     Look   at   the 

drawing  of  the  facial  outline,  the  brows,  the  askew 
nose,  the  wooden  arms,  the  pulpy  fingers,  the  flat- 
headed  child,  and  the  crazy-looking  dog.  It  may 
originally  have  been  a  Paolo,  but  it  is  now  almost 
any  one's  picture. 

1189.  The  Fainting  of  Esther.  Taken  from  a  Vene- 
tian palace,  shortened  at  the  top,  widened  at  the 
sides,  and  restored  innumerable  times,  what  chance 
is  there  now  of  this  picture  representing  its  original 
painter?  The  figures  are  noble  and  commanding, 
and  the  balanced  composition  with  the  archi- 
tectural background  are  there;  but  that  is  about 
all.  Probably  a  workshop  picture. 

1191.   Holy   Family.     A    small    picture   with    lofty 

types,  handsome  robes,  and  much  warmth  of  col- 
our, which  seems  to  have  been  sufficient  catalogue 
warrant  for  putting  it  down  to  Paolo  Veronese. 
It  is  possibly  a  school  study. 


VICTOOR,  JAN  151 

The  Disciples  at  Emmaus.     A  genuine  enough 

Paolo,  but  so  repaired  and  repainted  that  it  is  prac- 
tically ruined.  Even  the  blue  sky  has  gone  brown 
and  the  landscape  has  turned  greenish-white.  As 
for  the  figures,  their  drawing  and  modelling  are 
now  too  distorted  for  any  comment.  You  have 
merely  to  look  at  the  hands  and  arms.  Originally, 
no  doubt,  a  fine  picture.  The  two  children  in 
brocades,  with  the  dog  in  the  foreground,  are  said 
to  be  the  painter's  daughters.  How  lovely  they 
are  still! 

— Susanna  and  the  Elders.  Look  at  the  hard 
back  and  arm  of  Susanna,  with  the  manner  in  which 
the  head  is  set  on  the  wooden  neck  and  shoulders, 
and  ask  yourself  if  it  is  worth  while  to  hold  a  great 
master  responsible  for  such  repainted  and  ruined 
work  as  this.  The  picture  has  been  enlarged  in 
height  and  width — a  French  and  Italian  gallery 
habit,  suggesting  that  the  old  masters  were  too 
feeble-minded  to  know  the  right-sized  canvases  for 
their  pictures.  Probably  school  work. 

— Burning  of  Sodom.  With  good  action  and 
some  bad  drawing  in  the  flying  figures.  Also  some 
sketchy  painting  and  agreeable  colour,  in  the  style 
of  Paolo  Veronese,  but  with  little  to  indicate  di- 
rectly that  he  was  the  painter  of  the  picture. 
Victoor,  Jan.  Isaac  Blessing  Jacob.  Large,  and 
elaborately'  painted.  The  surface  is  smooth,  the 
colour  deep  but  factitious,  the  draperies  pret- 
tified and  weak.  It  pretends  but  does  not  fulfil. 
Notice  the  uneasy  curtains  and  the  prominence 
of  them. 

Portrait  of  a  Young  Girl.     Good  in  colour,  but 

weak  in  sentiment  and  rather  pretty  in  its  painting. 


152  THE  LOUVRE 

2196.  Weyden,  Roger  van  der.  Deposition.  A  tragic 
picture  with  much  fine  colour  and  some  harsh  lines. 
It  is  possibly  an  old  copy  or  perhaps  a  Van  der 
Weyden  school  piece.  Though  near  him,  it  is 
hardly  by  Van  der  Weyden  himself.  Marked  on 
the  frame  as  a  Bouts,  which  is  nearer  the  mark 
than  Van  der  Weyden. 

N.  N.  -  —Christ,  Madonna,  and  St.  John.  A  recently 
*  acquired  triptych  with  Mary  Magdalen  and  St. 
John  Baptist  in  the  wings.  The  central  panel  is 
wrought  with  great  truth,  feeling,  and  beauty.  It 
is  minutely  done  and  yet  for  the  time  and  the  kind 
of  work  it  is  freely  done.  The  drawing  is  excellent 
in  every  way,  in  every  detail,  and  not  more  so  in 
the  figures  than  in  the  landscape.  Notice  the  man- 
ner of  doing  the  trees,  the  distant  city,  the  white 
mountains,  the  sea,  the  rocks.  The  figures  are  a 
little  flat  and,  of  course,  the  landscape  is  only 
their  background  and  not  their  envelope.  How 
beautifully  they  are  drawn  in  the  sharp,  insistent 
Flemish  manner!  What  heads  and  hands!  What 
feeling  and  right  sentiment!  What  a  wonderful 
halo  about  the  head  of  Christ— wonderful  in  a 
decorative  sense!  The  colour  of  the  robes  is  deeper 
and  darker  here  than  in  the  wings. 

The  left  wing  is  done  in  a  manner  similar  to  the 
central  panel,  and  so  too  the  right  wing;  but  this 
right  wing  is  perhaps  by  another  hand  than  Roger's. 
It  is  not  absolutely  in  tone  with  the  other  panels 
but  is  lighter  in  colour,  higher  in  key.  The  head- 
dress, the  white  vase,  the  red  sleeve  are  all  a  little 
"jumpy."  Moreover,  the  trees,  rocks,  and  land- 
scape here  are  done  with  more  repetition  of  type, 
more  conventionality,  more  constraint.  This  is 
also  true  of  the  drawing  of  the  figure,  the  hair,  the 


ZURBARAN  153 

flesh.  The  difference  is  slight  and  the  right  panel 
is  well  done;  in  fact,  only  a  shade  different  from  the 
others.  Perhaps  it  was  done  at  a  later  time,  but 
it  is  more  likely  that  it  is  pupils'  or  assistants' 
work.  The  whole  triptych  is  in  good  condition,  a 
true  enough  Roger,  and  a  valuable  addition  to  the 
Louvre. 

2638.  Wynants,  Jan.  Landscape.  A  small  picture, 
but  charming  in  the  spread  of  the  trees  against 
the  sky,  in  the  figures,  in  the  light  and  air,  in  the 
colour. 

2637.  Landscape.  With  a  dull  light  and  a  dreary 

colour,  neither  of  them  possible  even  in  cloudy 
weather,  to  say  nothing  of  sunlight  under  a  blue 
sky.  But,  of  course,  the  studio  formula  required 
that  the  sun,  the  sky,  and  the  whole  landscape 
should  be  sacrificed  to  that  spot  of  white  on  the 
cow  in  the  foreground. 

1740.    Zurbaran,     Francisco    de.     St.   Apollonia.     A 

small  and  rather  crudely  drawn  figure  that  means 
more  as  life,  as  art,  as  decoration  than  the  large 
squares  of  canvas  (Nos.  1738  and  1739),  by  the  same 
painter,  which  are  shown  near  at  hand.  The  cos- 
tume and  the  colour  scheme  are  unique. 

1738  1 St.  Peter  Nolasque  and  St.    Raymond.     This 

1739  /  canvas  and  the  Burial  of  a  Bishop  (No.  1739)  are 

companion  pieces  of  pictures  at  Berlin  and  Dresden. 
There  is  good  work  about  them  in  drawing  and 
painting,  and  the  robes  are  broadly  and  freely 
painted,  but  the  pictures  seem  prosaic  and  dull. 
They  stir  no  interest  and  rouse  no  one  with  a 
trumpet  blast  of  colour. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


126.   Clouet,  Jean. 

127A] 

128    I 

129 

130 

133A 

134 


1048. 


Clouet,  Francois. 


Clouet  of  Navarre. 


Perreal. 
Albertinelli. 


304A 

311 

312 

315 

316 

683. 


Fouquet. 

Froment  d' Avignon. 

Claude  Lorraine. 


Poussin. 


Malouel. 


French  School, 
15th  Century. 


French  School, 
15th  Century. 

734    1 

737 

741 

995 

996 

998 
1000 
1002- 
1005 

1005A  Master  of  Moulins. 
1007 

1011A 

1012 

1013 

1014A  French  School, 

1015      16th  Century. 

1017 

1024 

1028 

1036 


1117 

1118 

1120. 

11281 

1132  J 

1134. 

1135 

1136 

1149 

1150 

1151. 

11531 

1154  J 

1156. 

1157. 

1158 

1158A 

1167. 

1169. 

1171. 

1175 

1176 

1178 

1179 

1181 

1182 

1182A 

1184. 

1185. 


Niccolo  Alunno. 
^nsano  di  Pietro. 
Antonello  da  Messina. 


Baroccio. 
Bartolo  di  Fredi. 
Bartolommeo,  Fra. 

Bellini,  Gentile. 
Bellini,  Gentile,  School 
of. 

>  Bellini,  Giovanni. 

Bianchi. 
Boltraffio. 
Bonifazio  dei  Pitati. 

Moretto. 
Bordone. 

Borgognone. 

Bronzino. 
Calcar. 

>  Veronese,  Paolo. 


1203.    Canaletto. 


155 


156 


INDEX 


1211.   Carpaccio. 
1252A  Catena. 

1259.  Cima. 

1260.  Cimabue. 

1261.  Costa. 

1263  ln     ,. 
1264|Credi. 

1265.   Leonardo  da  Vinci. 

1273.  Uccello. 

1274.  Florentine  School. 
1  278  1 

1279  I  Fabriano,  Gentile  da. 

1285.    Ferrari,  Defendente. 
1290] 

1293  [  Angelico,  Fra. 

1294  J 
1295] 

1296  \  Botticelli. 

1297  J 

1298.    Botticelli,  School  of. 

1300A  Botticelli. 

1300s  Francesca,  P.  della. 

1301.  Gaddi,  Agnolo. 

1302.  Gaddi,  Taddeo. 

1303.  Garbo. 
1312.    Giotto. 

1318.   Girolamo  dai  Libri. 

1S20  I 

1322  }  GhirlandaJ°»  Dom- 

13281 


Benozzo  Gozzoli. 


1334 
1343] 

1344  >  Lippi,  Fra  Filippo. 

1345  J 


Luini. 


13491 

1350     Lotto. 

1351 J 

1352.    Piombo,    Sebastiano 

del. 
1353 
1354 
1355 
1359 
1360 
1367 
1367A 

1372.  Manni. 
1373- 
1376 

1379.  Maratta. 
1381.  Marchesi. 

1383.  Simone  Martini. 

1384.  Massone. 

J^^Montagna. 

1399.  Palma  Vecchio. 

1400.  Palmezzano. 

1401.  Panetti. 


_ 

>  Mantegna. 


1416Al0. 

1416B  I 

1417.    Pinturicchio. 

1422  bis.     Pisanello. 

1435  1 

1436  >  Francia,  Fr. 

1437  J 

1448.   Reni,  Guido. 
1464        1 

is     Tintoretto. 


1467 


INDEX 


157 


1482.   Rosselli. 

1496-      ] 

1509        }  Raphael. 

1509  bis  J 

1514- ] 

1516    >  Sarto,  A.  del. 

1516A  J 

1519.   Savaldo. 
1525] 

1526  \  SignoreUi. 

1527  J 
1530] 

1531  }  Solario. 

1532  J 


Tiepolo. 


JTura. 


1547 

1549 

1553.   Garofalo. 

1556 

1557 

1564 

1565 

1566   Perugino. 

1566A 

1567 

1573.    Perugino,  School  of. 

1577- 

1581 


1583- 

1592 

1595 

1597- 

1600 


1603A 


Titian. 


Leonardo  da  Vinci. 


1643A  Florentine  School. 
1644.   Italian  School. 
1656 

1662A     Florentine  SchooL 

1663 

1665.   Sienese  School. 

1668.   Bolognese  School. 

1673.   Venetian  School. 

1677.   Italian  School. 

1677A 

1677B 

1706.  Herrera. 

1708 

1709 

1710 

1712 

1713 

1716 

1717 

1722 

1725 

1731 

1732 

1734 

1735 

1736 

1738] 

1739  >  Zurburan. 

1740  J 
1911.   Bril. 
1916.    Brouwer. 

1917    \  Brueghel,   Peter  the 
1917A  J      Elder. 

\™  \  Brueghel,  Jan  the 
1925 


Ferrarese  SchooL 


Murillo. 


Ribera. 


Velasquez. 


Elder. 


Dyck,  Anthony  van.      232g  % 


2203 
2204A 
2303A  Bailly. 


Flemish  School. 


2330 


Bol. 


2336.   Brekelenkam. 


158  INDEX 

1957.  David.  2198 

1962 

1964 

1967 

1969 

1971- 

1977 

1983 

1985 

1986.  Eyck,  Jan  van. 

1997]  2348.  Dou. 

1998  }  Gossart.  2364.  Eeckhout. 

1999  J 

2001.    Hemessen. 

2013]  2372 1F, 

2014  Jordaens.  2373  J  f 

2016  J  2377.  Goyen. 

2383-  I 
2388  J  -"a^S)  Frans. 

2389.  Hals,  Dirck. 
2397.  Heist,  B.  van  der. 


2055.  Mol.  24Q1 


2075 

2077 

2078 

2079 

2082 

2084- 

2109 

2111 

2112- 

2115 

2116 

2118 


2402 
2404 


2  }  Heyden,  Van  der. 


Hooch,  P.  de. 

Rubens.  2438  bis.  Keyser. 

2456.  Vermeer  of  Delft. 


2457 
2459 
2460 
2462 


Metsu. 


2157  \T  2464 

2162  I  Teniers-  2466  1 

2196.   Weyden,  R.  van  der.         2467  J  Mierevelt' 


INDEX 


159 


2479 
2480 
2481 
2497 
2498 
2513. 


2721.    Italian  School. 


Moro. 

Ostade,  A.  van. 
Ostade,  I.  van. 


2529 

2536- 

2549 

2551-     Rembrandt. 

2555 

2555A 

2558  } ' 

2559  >  Ruisdael,  Jac.  van. 

2560  J 

2563 A  Geertgen  tot  St.  Jans. 
2564.  Santvoord. 


2600.   Velde,  W.  van  de. 


2661D  Ruysdael,  Sol.  van. 

2703    1 

2703A  >  Cranach. 

2705    J 

271U  Giltlinger. 

2713 

2714 

2715      Holbein. 

2717- 

2720 


Cologne,  School  of. 

2738.   Cleve,  J.  van. 
2738A  Cleve,  School  of. 
2738s  Flemish  School. 

2738D}  Cologne,  School  of. 

2740    1 

2745     \  German  School. 

2745A  J 

N.  N.  Angelico,  Fra. 

N.  N.  Bellegambe. 

N.  N.  Bellini,  Giovanni. 

N.  N.  Bruyn. 

N.  N.  Coter,  Colin  de. 

N.  N.  Cranach. 

N.  N.  Florentine  School. 

N.  N.  French  School. 

N.  N.  Greco,  II. 

N.  N.  Lorenzo  Monaco. 

N.  N.  Mantegna. 

N.  N.  Master  of  Kinsfolk  of 

Virgin. 

N.  N.  Memling. 
N.  N.  Poussin. 
N.  N.  Scorel. 
N.  N.  Signorelli. 
N.  N.  Weyden,  R.  van  der. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


DEC1~'65-11AM     ^ 


393597 

^. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


